the warlike noise of the Rams-horns in the Hellelian more contracted the Vau being left out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 C. 10. of the same the Hillelian Copy reads v. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a Schurec In the same chapter for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Vowel Segol under He it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Camets under He. The rest are more trivial excepting one place of the Book of Joshuah C. 21. where in the Masoretick Copies two whole Verses are wanting which that venerable Exemplar written for the use of Nassi or the Prince has supply'd again But in the Margin of the said Copy these words are to be read as being added by him who corrected that Exemplar in many places according to the Masoretick Lo Matzinou Elau Hashenin Pasikim Be Hilleli We cannot find those two Verses in the Hillelian by which the Masoretick Lection is confirm'd though it seems to be faulty enough We have some reason to suspect Hillel to be a Spaniard by Nation and a famous Rector of some Academy who reformed the Masoretick Edition in sundry places according to the Antient Copies After his death his Copies as being more corrected than the Vulgar became to be high in esteem especially among his Country-men and as Antiquity swells Mole-hills into Mountains after Death Thus the Name of Hillel being become famous was soon made use of to gull the more ignorant afterwards also his Name seduc'd the more Learned Jews less wary than they ought to have been And why I should thus think the very nature of the Hillelian Codex which varies in very few things and those very slight from the Masoretick which at that time was approv'd by the publick Practice and Authority of all Schools which seems to be confirm'd from hence for that then several of the Rabbies especially in Spain even after that tedious Labour which the Masorites undertook scrupled not to write down in their own Books the Variations of Scripture taken out of Antient Copies And hither ought we to refer the Animadversions of R. R. Judas Jonas Kimchi and others who have oft recourse to the Sepharim Midvikim or corrected Copies and hither also belongs that note frequent in the Margin most especially of the Spanish Manuscripts B' Sepher Achar in the other Copy But that Hillel was a Spaniard is not only to be proved from hence that his Biblick Copy was found in Spain and first extoll'd by the Spanish Jews but because I find several of the Spanish Lections quoted in the Spanish Exemplars quite otherwise than in the German and others In like manner we may affirm that the Exemplars of the Bibles which the Jews extol under the names of Ben Ascer and Ben Narthali were written out by such persons who being Presidents of Publick Academys made it their business to reform Erroneous Copies But in what time they liv'd is a thing not well known to the Jews themselves very little curious of their own Chronology However common fame reports them to have liv'd about the year 1034. long after the Tyberian Masorites R. Moses Tephil c. 8. And this was the Opinion of R. Gedalia R. David Gans and several others among the Christians It cannot be unknown what R. Moses has written concerning Ben Ascer's Manuscript which as he asserts was very well known in Egypt by which the Hierosolymitan Jews corrected their own Books That is the Examplar saith he which they all use because Ben Ascer corrected it labouring at it for many years and correcting it many times quite thorough For the Governours or Presidents of the Academies formerly according to the Custom of the Jews wrote out Copies which afterwards were made use of by the Provinces of which they were Chief Rulers and Princes especially if they were in any esteem for being Learned whence seems to have risen that variety of Readings which is found among the Manuscript Copies of several Provinces and distinct Ages Nor do the Rabbies themselves seem to deny it who believe that the Western Jews follow'd R. Ascer and the Oriental R. Naphtali in the Transcription of their Copies Now they call the Western Jews those that dwell in and about Jerusalem and the Eastern Jews those that live in and about Babylon The Hierosolymitan Codex saith Elias the Levite R. Elias Levita is that which Rabbi Jonas the Grammarian found by the Testimony of R. David Kimchi and perhaps may be that Exemplar which R. Ascer corrected who liv'd a long time at Jerusalem But the Lections about which the Rabbies themselves are at variance are very slight and trivial as they are in the Hillelian Nor will it be worth while to repeat them here in regard there is a Catalogue of them annexed to the large Venetian as also the Basil and English Bibles Let it suffice to observe that the Catalogue of the same Varieties in Manuscript which are fixed at the end of some Manuscript Bibles and to which they might have recourse do not exactly agree with those that are Printed at London Basil or Venice For some which in the Vulgar Editions claim Ben Ascer for their Author belong to those Catalogues which indeed owe their publication to R. Naphtali Such is that which is reckon'd the sixth in number and those which follow Those Manuscript Catalogues also add some and other Variations they omit besides those already Printed For where the Modern Lection makes use of the Accent Maccaph the more recent Manuscripts make use of the Point Dagesh or of some such thing Nor could there be any other way to knit together the series of those slight niceties because they are of little or no use For should we observe all the Variances of this kind which might be found in turning over those Manuscripts with an intention to embody them in one heap such a Collection would certainly swell into a large Volume For I must needs say they had leisure to spare who lookt after the Edition of the English Polyglottons who have not only publish'd those Lections every one in their order as they found them in the Basil and Venetian Editions but have also added the several places of Scripture of which there was hither never any Index before So that I wonder that men otherwise Learned should have no better thought than to employ themselves about such trifles But as to those differences of Readings which before the Times of the Tiberian Rabbies commaculated the holy Text and are of greater moment should be so sluggishly careless And which is worse having little knowledge of the Books of the Ancient Writers but only accustom'd to the Varieties in those Manuscripts of later date already mention'd yet they affirm a wonderful agreement of the Hebrew Copies among themselves Here might be added also those Varieties which are Ben Magnarabei ou Madnachei between the Eastern and Western Jews But in regard they are already publick and very few that are of moment that I may
fully expressed the Hebrew Context whom for this reason he doth often reprove in his Commentaries I pass by to avoid prolixity those mistakes of the 70 many of which are taken notice of by the Commentators of the Bible and to make up the Catalogue the obscure places of the Greek ought to be compared with the Hebrew context for they having not followed chiefly in these places the sence of the Original have variously and at large digressed I cannot but praise the industrious and learned Is Vossius in that he endeavoured to vindicate in all that Greek Translation in his opinion Divine Masius prof to Josb but the unbyassed Masius seems far more able to judge of that Translation a Man of an acute Wit and sharp Judgment and well known in the Hebrew Greek and Syriac Copies Wherefore what we should judge of the 70 may be I think far better learnt from Masius than from Vossius The Learned Man gives this Judgment of them Whosoever says he will but consider the Books of Scripture will find the Translation of them the Law of Moses excepted ascribed to the 72 Interpreters that it will not seem probable that the 72 Doctors sent to Ptolemy by the High Priest were so unapt so unskilful so uncapable of Translating and absurd that they could commit such gross mistakes for there are not only great verbal errors arising from literal mistakes when they Interpret one thing for another but and that not seldom even in long Periods Thus this Learned Doctor defends the opinion of St. Jerom Jeroms pref upon the Heb. Transl Messius who thinks that the Translation of the Pentateuch and of the other Books of Scripture were not done by the same Hands the same Masius a little farther explaining himself more clearly subjoys what is worth observation Neither truly do I calculate the above mentioned errors by the Hebrew context now in use that the novelty of points errors interpoints and the addition of Vowels and Accents which the Authors of the Masoreth are said to have invented or the unfaithfulness of some Transcribers whom I do not approve as if they had designedly corrupted the Hebrew Context in many places may not be any excuse the very things treated of do often sufficiently manifest the Absurdity and Incongruity of Words and Phrases which the Translators have used and presently concludes the whole matter thus If my opinion should be asked I must confess that the Translation is Divine and seems to be penned rather by Prophets than by their Interpreters in some places in others silly nor at all agreeable to the Learning of so great Doctors and because I met with these difficulties not only in the other Books altho in them the errors are more gross and confounding but also in Moses Pentateuch as we call it and because the Story of Ptolomy and the Intepreters related by so many can't be without some ground I am apt to believe their opinion to be most likely who say that not only the Law of Moses but also the other Historical and Prophetical Books were Translated by those Jews at the desire of Ptolomy Thus far Masius whose words I have been the longer upon because they very much Illustrate the Argument in Hand At first this Learned man well read in the Hebrew Chaldee Syriac and Greek dares not ascribe the Greek Translation the Peutateuch excepted to the LXX it was so full of gross errors and because he hath perceived many faults also in the Pentateuch he hath embraced yet somewhat doubtfully the common opinion of these 70 Translators neither doth he spare to call those whom he acknowledges from a prejudice the chief among the Jews of that age absurd silly and illiterate and he seems to be introduced thereunto by the Authority of St. Jerom and the truth of the thing it self afterwards as it were correcting himself he acknowledges some of the Translation to be Divine and Dictated by Prophets rather than Interpreters and what is chiefly to be considered he declares he did not reprehend the Greek from the modern Copies of the Jews which it is evident are degenerated from the antient purity in many places in fine he censures the generality of Divines who take upon them Magisteriously to judge of the matter in hand of which they are ignorant and do bring in strange fancies into the Church as that the Hebrew context is designedly corrupted by the Jews as is asserted by some that the Greek is to be preferred before the Hebrew with some others of the same nature which come from those who have more zeal then knowledge if the Learned Masius was now alive he would wonder that any Protestant and Isaac Vosius the first should have the same opinion of the Greek and Hebrew Copies with those divines he reprehends Masius had been wholy of our Opinion if he had not given so much credit to the Story of Aristaeus which he saw was confirm'd by a Cloud of Witnesses he should rather have considered Reason than plurality of Voices neither truly will he judge otherwise of the Greek Translation who shall critically Examine it by the Hebrew Originals And this is the Opinion of all the Critic Expositors of the Scripture For if at any time they have used the Hebrew and Greek for illustrating the Context sometimes they scrupie not to Correct the Hebrew by the Greek but much more often the Hebrew is preferred before the Greek Augustin of Engubio to pass by others in his review of the old Testament to the Hebrew verity having compared the various Editions accuses the Greek Interpreters sometimes of ignorance This Greek Translation says he whether the 70. Interpreters were perfect Masters of the Greek whether they used other Copies than could be had in St. Jeroms or our time or whether they did designedly so Translate differs very much from the Hebrew verity Some places do shew a manifest unskilfulness of the Greek and others a great ignorance of the Hebrew Tongue Augustine himself is not always infallible as for Example when he condems them for Traslating in Chap. 19. Genes place instead of banquet but he observes not that in the Greek corrupt Venetian it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 place for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 banquet as is truly read in the Roman Edition The same Augustine makes himself ridiculous when he condemns their Translation in Chap. 27. Genes of the Hebrew word naphal by the Latine word manere whereas it should have been Translated by the word cadere fall whence he takes occasion to defend the vulgar Translation which has it obiit but the Greek Translation of the 70. is the best the Hebrew ought not to be otherwise Translated if we consider the sence for the death of Ishmael is not there spoke of but the Land wherein he dwelt as appears by what goes before Wherefore we are â—ot to â—â—â—ken to Augustine always when he condemns the Greek Translators altho he hath truly marked many of
of Egypt long before the Arabian which were taken from them The word Coptus or Cophtus seems to derive it's Original from a City of the same Name which was heretofore the Metropolis of Thebais of which both Strabo and Plutarch make mention And very probable it is that that same Coptic Language was the ancient Language of the Egyptians not pure but having some mixture of the Greek especially from the time that they were under the Dominion of the Macedonians so that they chang'd the ancient Characters of their Language into the Greek which they partly retain to this day But in regard that Language surceas'd by degrees to become familiar and only remain'd among those who had something of Learning and Education the Egyptian Rabbies added to those Books which were then read in their Churches in the Coptic Language the Arabic Explanation after they became subject to the Saracens They have also Lexicons and Grammars for that Coptic Language which Kircher publish'd in Print by which we find that the Ancient Coptic Tongue besides the Greek words which it had learnt under the Graecian Princes retain'd also something of the Arabic But no man ought to doubt but that the Coptic Version was taken from the Greek Translation of the 70 Interpreters in regard that the Jews of old some of the Syrian Churches excepted always read the Hebrew Text or Versions taken from thence The Ethiopic Versions As to the Ethiopic Version of the Bible written in the Ethiopic Language we shall make some few observations This Version as all other Books which are read in the Ethiopic Churches was Translated out of the Coptic into the Ethiopic Tongue Therefore the Ethiopic Bibles are the same with the Coptic render'd only into Ethiopic Neither do the Ethiopians acknowledge any other Patriarch but only him who assumes the Title of Patriarch of Alexandria being an Egyptian and the Ceremonies of their Church are borrow'd from the Egyptians or Coptics But the ancient Ethiopic Language wherein their Bible is written has something of mixture both of Hebrew Arabic and Chaldee Especially of the Chaldee so that the Ethiopians call their Language Chaldaic or Babylonian as if it were the same with the pure an ancient Babylonic from which however it differs very much But the modern Ethiopic now familiar among the Ethiopians differs little from it Nevertheless they do not use any Points like Hebrews Chaldeans Syrians and Arabians but every Letter makes a Consonant and a Vowel which is peculiar to that Nation The Persian Veâ—sions There seems to be nothing at all at present remaining of that same ancient Persian Version which beyond all Controversie was taken from the Greek Translation of the Seventy The ancient Persian Language also has admitted much of mixture by reason of it's being jumbl'd with the Arabic from whence it has borrow'd all it's terms of Arts and Sciences together with the Arabic Characters the ancient Persian Letters being lost and no where to be seen but in some Antique Copies But as for that same Version of some part of the Sacred Scripture publish'd in our Age it does not seem worthy of any great esteem as being but of late years The Armeniâ—n Translation If we will believe the Armenian Doctors the Version of the Bible which they now read in their Churches in the Armenian Language was not made by John Chrysostome as some believe out of the Greek into the Armenian but by some Doctors of their own Nation who studied the Greek Language more especially by one Moses Sirnam'd the Grammarian and one David vulgarly call'd the Philosopher and this happen'd to be much about John Chrysostomes time The Armenians also deny that John Chrysostome was the Inventor of the Armenian Characters which they attribute to a certain Hermite whose name was Mescop who invented them in the City of Balu not far from Euphrates who also liv'd much about the time that Chrysostome flourish'd But because there were hardly any Exemplars of those Bibles to be found entire and those very dear to boot in our Age Jacob Caractri Patriarch of the Armenians sent into Europe Vschan Yuschuavanchi a Bishop that by his care and industry the Ancient Bible might be printed Whereupon the Old and New Testament was Printed in the Armenian Language and Character at Amsterdam anno 1664. But certain it is that this Armenian Translation and I had it from the mouth of the Bishop himself was taken from the Greek Version of the 70 Interpreters The Versions of the Muscovites Georgians and other people Lastly the Muscovites Iberians or Georgians a people inhabiting the Regions of Câ—olchis have also their Translations of the Holy Scripture and it is not long since that the Bible was printed in the Muscovitic Language and Character But there is no question to be made but that they were all taken from the Greek in regard those Nations deriv'd their Christian Faith and their Ecclesiastic Ceremonies from the Greeks And thus much concerning the Bibles made use of by the Eastern Nations CHAP. XXII Of the later Versions of the Bible and first of all of Latin Versions done by Catholick Divines The Bibles of Cardinal Ximenius THOUGH Francis Ximenius of Seneros Cardinal and Arch-Bishop of Toledo has given us no other Latin Version of the Hebrew Text in his Complutensian Bible than the vulgar or that of St. Jerom yet he may be deservedly rank'd amongst the Catholic Interpreters of the Holy Scriptures For first of all he publish'd in that excellent work the Chaldee Paraphrase upon the five Books of Moses with a verbal Version into Latin as also the Seventies Greek Version of all the Books of the Old Testament with an interlineary Latin Translation In the year 1515. And because every one has not the perusal of the Complutensian Bibles it may not be improper in this place to give some account of the design of that learned Cardinal in this new Edition of the Bible He affirms in his proaemium to Leo the tenth that every Language has it's peculiar Idioms and Properties of expression which the most accurate Translation is not able to render and especially the Hebrew and a little after subjoins these words †In his Prologue to Leo the tenth Moreover wheresoever the Latin Translators differ or a reading is suspected to be corrupt we must have recourse to the Original in which the Scriptures were writ as St. Jerom and Austin and other Ecclesiastical Writers direct so that the sincerity of the Versions of the Old Testament must be examin'd by the Hebrew and the New by the Greek Copies But who would believe that this Cardinal who speaks so great things of the Hebrew should by and by in another Epistle to his Readers so basely detract from it so that we have reason to suspect these passages were foisted in by others We have plac'd says the Cardinal The same Cardinal in his Prologue to the Reader the Latin
Version of St. Jerom betwixt them i. e. the Hebrew and the Translation of the 70 as it were betwixt the Synagogue and the Eastern Church like two there 's one on each hand but in the middle is Jesus i. e. the Roman Church For this alone being built upon a strong and lasting Rock stood always firm in the Truth when all others deviated from the right understanding of the Scriptures a comparison highly unworthy a Cardinal of the Roman Church which yet Nicholas Ramus a Spanish Divine too and Bishop of Cuba has transfer'd into his Tract of the Vulgar Translation San. Pignin a Dominican first publish'd a Version of the holy Scriptures according to the Hebrew Original in the year MDLXXVII with two Epistles of the two Popes Adrian the Sixth The Version of Pagnine and Clement the Seventh in the front of the Book who both strengthen his Edition of the Bible with their Authority and before this time Leo the Tenth had approv'd Pignine's design of making a New Translation of the Bible according to the Hebrew Original 't is evident as well from the Epistle which Franciscus Picus wrote to Pagnin as from Pagnin himself that he spent at least thirty years in that Work insomuch that it had the approbation of all the Jews of that Age for an accurate piece Yet some great men amongst the Catholicks have judg'd otherwise of it For Genebrard describes it thus 't is not dâ—ligently done 't is too ambitious too curious too Grammatical too much affecting abbinical niceties and such as often mars the Truth and Substance of things with the subtilty of Novel Precepts Whereupon sometimes it corresponds not enough with the Doctrine of the ancient Hebrews And Joannes Mariana confirms this with instances of his lapses who endeavours to make it out that Pagnin has sometimes overthrown the mysteries of our Religion by receding too much from the Version of St. Jerome as in the ninth Chapter of Job where Jerom renders it rursum circundabor pelle meâ I shall be again clothed with my Skin and thence proves the resurrection of the Body Pagnin Translates it postquà m pellem meam contriverunt after they have consumed and worn my Skin and in the first Edition of his Version had interpreted it more obscurely post pellem meam contritam vermes contriverunt banc carneâ— and after my consumed Skin the Worms have consumed my Flesh adding words which are not extant in the Hebrew and yet Monsieur Huel gives quite another Character of Pagnines Version than Genebrard Mariana and other very learned men whom I forbear to mention He has given us says he an example of almost a perfect and compleat interpretation of the holy Scriptures But it 's evident that Pagnine err'd in many particulars For first he declar'd that he would keep close to the Latin Interpretation except in such places where 't was absolutely necessary to do otherwise Notwithstanding which he often deserted it without any colour or shadow of reason only that he might follow Kimchi and other latter Ribbins of the Jews For how came it about that for these words in the beginning of Genesis which in the Vulgar Translation are Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas the Spirit of God mov'd upon the Waters he should render Spiritus Dei superflabat in superficie aquarum the Spirit of God breath'd upon the Face of the Waters unless because the Chaldee Paraphrase and some Doctors of the Jews had so explain'd it Again who could brook the Version of the same Pagnine in the sixth Chapter of Genesis who for these words which in the Latin Edition are nòn permanebit spiritus meus my Spirit shall not always abide he put nòn erit ut in vaginâ speritus meus my Spirit shall not be as if 't were in a Scabbard He was not content to explain the Sense of the Hebrew word only but likewise the Etymology of it just as Kimchi had done it Wherefore he shew'd himself a foolish and quarrelsome Interpreter As Aquila of old had done in speaking so barbarously Thus where the Latin Interpretation has it in the 1 of Gen. and the 20 vers producant aquae reptile let the Waters bring forth every creeping thing He Translates repere faciant aquae reptile let the Waters make every creeping thing to creep and in another Edition reptificent let them creep c. Neither does he always follow the Sense of the Hebrew Text thus in the 8 Chap of Nehemiah the Latin Interpreter excellently well renders these words from the Hebrew legerunt in libro in lege Dei distinctè they read in the Book in the Law of God distinctly But Pagnine contrary to all Sense and Reason Translates it so legerunt in libro in lege Dei expositi They read in the Book of the Law of God Expounded in which place he contradicts himself for in his Dictionary those very words are otherwise explain'd Other remarks which might be made upon Pagnine's Version I shall for brevities sake omit Arias Montanus was not the Author of the new Version of the Bible he was content to correct Pagnines Translation in some places But having a more then ordinary regard to the bare Grammar Rules never minding the Sence he outwent Pagnine in his barbarousness He spent his whole time in expressing the Hebrew exactly without any respect to the Sense thus in the 9 of Exodus where Pagnine has pretty well render'd novi quià nondùm timeatis I know because ye will not yet fear the Corrector Arias Montanus turn'd novi quià antequà m timeatis I know because ye fear before that The Hebrew word Terem has doubtless a different signification in one place it signifies priusquà m before that in another nondùm not yet which Arias never minding turn'd it to that Sense which comes next to hand An infinite number almost of such absurdities may be found in this Translation which I advisedly forbear to mention Who for Gods sake can understand Arias's Interpretation of that Verse of the 110 Psalm where for these words which we read in the Vulgar Edition tu es Sacerdos in aeternum secundùm ordinem Melchisedec thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec In Pagnines Version secundùm morem Melchisedec thou art a Priest after the manner of Melchisedec Arias turns this way tu es Sacerdos in seculum super verbum meum Melchisedec thou art a Priest for ever upon the word of Melchisedec Monsieur Hewet did indeed attempt defending him in this and openly styl'd him a most faithful Translator who keeping close to the Hebrew Text despis'd the censures and calumnies of the unskilful yet certainly he does not seem to deserve the name of an Interpreter who does not in some measure express the Sense of the Author which he Translates But notwithstanding all this Arias Montanus is very famous among all Learned men for that vast and truly Royal Work of the Polyglot Printed at Antwerp which
Hebrew Tongue and one that had exercised himself very much in this kind of Study as it appears from the Latin Translation of the Old Testament which he adds to his Comment and likewise from his Hebrew Lexicon which he adapted to the ancient Translations which notwithstanding he departed from in his Translation relying too much upon his own parts and catching rather at words and shadows than the substances of things CHAP. XXIV Of the Translations of the Bible into the Vulgar Tongues and first of all of thâ—se made by Catholicks AFter the rise of new Hereticks in the Western Church who casting aside Traditions would acknowledge no other rule and standard of Religion besides the Scriptures there were several warm disputes betwixt Divines of all perswasions about this very thing The more prudent and moderate Catholicks did not absolutely condemn the Translations of the Scriptures into the mother Tongue of every Nation because it was allowed of by the Fathers But they judged it requisite to stop the increase and progress of Heresie which sprung from some misinterpreted and perverted Texts of Scripture to forbid the promiscuous reading of them in the vulgar languages by reason of several inconveniences which attend it without a due regard to the Persons Times and some other circumstances Faith according to St. Paul comes by hearing and 't is certain far more have been converted to Christianity by hearing of the Gospel than by reading it At the first promulgation of the Christian Religion there were no Books of the Gospel from which Men might have learned the Principles of their Religion 't is very probable that if the Apostles had never write any thing about the Christian Faith yet our Religion by the help of Tradition had been transmitted unto us entire and perfect This is the general opinion of the Catholick Doctors who do not positively forbid these Translations if so be all persons in all times and places be not promiscuously permitted to read them for 't is their Maxim Non prosit potius quic quid abesse potest Now 't is easily prov'd that almost all Christians before the rise of the Protestant Innovators had the liberty to peruse the Scriptures in their native Tongues For what other reason should the Grecians prefer the Septuagint to the Original Hebrew but that the Greek was their Mother Tongue Likewise the People of Italy had the Bible Translated into Latin because they naturally spoke it and for the same reason the Eastern People had their Syriack Coptick Arabick and Armenian Translations which for brevity I shall omit 'T is true that some Translations are now read among these People which they do not understand as the Latin is at this day among the Italians but this is no convincing argument that these Translations were never in the Languages familiarly known and understood by the common People Now I pass to the Translations of the Bible into the modern Tongues Jacobus de Varagine is highly esteemed among the Italians for his Translation of the Scriptures into their Tongue But now there are some other Italian Translations much in vogue which carry the names of Nicholas Malermius Abbot of the Monastry of St. Michael de Lern and Anton. Bucciolus and in some Editions there is a Preface in which the Author discourses at large of the Translations of the Scriptures into the vulgar Languages but there is this difference betwixt Brucciolius and some other Interpreters He turn'd the Bible immediately out of the Original whereas they only translated it from the Latin Interpretation which was usually read in the Western Churches There are several Editions of this immediate Translation from the Hebrew the first of which the Author dedicates to Francis the First King of France in the Year 1530. afterwards there came forth three other Editions in the Years 1539 40 and 41 but the Edition in the Year 1540 is accounted the best because there are several very useful Marginal Notes in it together with an Epistle of Antonius Brucciolius to Renata the Wife of Francis Duke of Ferrara in the defence and commendation of the Translations of the Bible into the Vulgar Tongues yet this Italian Interpreter seems to be too weak for the management of so noble and weighty a design seeing he sticks not closely enough to the Hebrew Text but follows other Translations especially that of Pagnin whose very errors he has copied out adding some more of his own in some places which he did not understand For in the 8 Chap. of Nehemiah where Pagnin perverts the Original by rending it In lege Dei expositi he translates it Nulla lege d'Iddio dichiarata differing as much from Pagnin as the Hebrew Text For because he searched not into the Hebrew Copies he did not take notice that the word which fignifies Lex is of the Feminine Gender and that the Participle passive which he render'd by Dichiarata was of the Masculine Gender and so while he pretends without consulting the words of the Context to correct Pagnin whom he did not well understand he falls into a downright error I shall forbear to say any thing of the Translation of Jacobus de Voraign because I never saw it Passevinus who had a Copy of it gives no very great Character of it but others highly commend it But I think I may confidently affirm that very few of those Translations which are taken out of Latin Editions can be accurate and correct seeing it happens very often that the Latin Interpreter cannot be understood without some knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue hence it is that Jacobus de Voraigne Mattermus and others who turn the holy Scriptures out of Latin into another Tongue are often guilty of gross mistakes There were several Translations of the Bible into French long before Calvin was heard of Gall. Vers For before the Catholick Religion was reform'd or rather deform'd by him a French Translation of the Scriptures was read in Geneva and the neighbouring Mountains which was compos'd in the year MCCXCIV by one Guiars des Moulins a Canon of Aria in Artois formerly under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Terovenne a Copy of that Translation is still kept in the publick Library at Geneva and another at Paris in the study of the Famous Henry Justelle and I am of opinion that this is the Translation which is mention'd by Robert Olivetanus Rob. Olivet Praes in Bibl. who sent the first Bible in French to Genevah Likewise there is another French Translation in some Libraries in France which is believ'd to have been done by Orosmes Canon of Rouen in the time of Charles the fifth and Car. Molinaus gives out that he had some loose Manuscript Peices of it Moreover 't is evident that the Divines of Lovaine were not the first as is commonly believ'd who Printed the French Translation of the holy Scriptures We have a Translation publish'd at Antwerp in the year 1530 by Martin L' Empereur with the Priviledge
Lib. 18. de civit Dei c 36. which is to be understood only concerning the two first Books of Maccabees for the third is rejected as well by the Church as by the Synagogue To which opinion St. Jerom seems to adhere though frequently in his works he shews himself a most stout defender of the Judaick Canon For when Ruffinus objects Lib. 2. Apoll. adversus Rufus that Jerom in his own Edition of the Bible would allow no Authority of Scripture to the Story of Susanna the Song of the three Children and the Story of Bell and the Dragon which he had called Fables the learned Father answers that he did not speak his own Sentiments but only explain'd what the Jews were wont to urge against the Christians but Jerom had said that Origen Eusebius Apollinarius and other Doctors of Greece would make no answer to Porphyrius for those Visions which had no Authority of Scripture and the same Jerom thus writes concerning the Book of Judith This Book the Synod of Nice is said to have numbred among the Holy Writings upon which Erasmus thus observes He does not say it was approv'd in the Synod of Nice but the Synod is said to have numbred it and really St. Jerom in his Preface to the Book of Kings had denied both Judith and Tobias to be Canonical Now the question is whether St. Jerom do not seem to contradict himself when he affirms the same Books of Judith and Tobias to be read by the Hebrews among the Hagiographers who nevertheless both here and in another place had written that these Books are not extant in the Canon of the Jews and therefore to be accounted Apocryphal But what those Hagiographers of the Jews that were mentioned by St. Jerom in these places Joseph Scaliger confesses he does not understand because the Hagiographies were received by the Jews into the Canon of Holy Scripture long before St. Jerom liv'd But Huetius believes St. Jerom to be deceiv'd in this particular in that he thought the Jews had no Hagiographies without the pale of the Canon and he brings against Scaliger the famous Bath Kol or the Daughter of the voice by whose assistance the Jews set forth their Hagiographies and their inspir'd Scripture But they are the meer dreams of idle triflers which the Circumcised Doctors have invented concerning Bath Kol Then it is certain that they never receiv'd among their Canonical Authors the Books of Judith and Tobias Therefore they are all fictions which Huetius and others alledg concerning the twofold sort of Hagiographers among the Jews and they may be refuted not only by the Testimonies of Josephus and Jerom who positively witness that Tobias Judith and other Books set forth in Greek now comprehended within the Canon of the Roman Church were never reckon'd by the Jews among the Prophets or Hagiographers but also by the Authority of the more Modern Jews who when they number up the Sacred Books make no mention of them at all but only cite them as sententious Writings wherein however they did not believe there was any thing of Divine Inspiration If therefore in this our Age nay in the ancient Ages of the Church they were numbred among the Canonical Books that is to be attributed to the Judgment of the Church and not of the Synagogue Therefore there is a double Canon to be allowed that of the Church and that of the Synagogue And by the first Rule they may not erroneously be called Ecclesiastic Books which the Church taking no notice of the Jewish Canon have thought fit to admit into their Canon and to be read in their Congregations For it is certain that even from the very first Infancy of the Church these Books were accustom'd to be read and sung in the Congregations of the Faithful which Erasmus admires to hear so frequently sung and read in Churches at this day But that it was so Eras Schol. in Prefat Jerom in Dan. Erasmus might have learnt out of the Invictives of Ruffinus against St. Jerom. All these things Sixtus Senensis egregiously illustrates at the beginning of his Bibliotheca where he divides the Books of Holy Scripture into two Classe's Sixtus Senens l. 1. Bibl. S. In the first he reckons those which he calls Protocanonical or Canonical of the first Order And these are they which are received beyond all Controversie by the unanimous consent as well of the Jews as Christians In the other Classis he places those which he calls Deutero Canonical or Canonical of the second Order which formerly saith he were called Ecclesiastic That is to say those of which there was for some time a dubious Opinion among the Catholicks and which came late to the knowledge of the whole Church Among the Books of the first sort he only numbers those which the Synagogue admitted into their Cannon Into the next Classis he admits those which in the ancient Ages of the Church were reckon'd by most among the Apocriphal Writers to which he adds the Book of Esther in regard that some of the Fathers were doubtful of its Authority the only difficulty arises from the Authority of St. Jerom who in contradiction to the belief of all the Jews and his own Testimony has written that the Books of Tobias and Judith are extant with the Hebrews among the Hagiographies I admire that Scaliger and others so well skill'd in Critic Animadversion did not observe that in the Prefaces of Jerom upon Tobias and Judith we were not to read it Hagiographa as it is now read but Apocripha For though I want written Manuscripts to maintain that Lection yet the words of St. Jerom himself manifestly make it out The Book oâ— Tobias saith the Learned Father which the Hebrews pruning off from the Catalogue of Divine Scripture have condemn'd among those which they call Hagiographa Who does not presently apprehend from hence that the word ought to be read Apocripha not Hagiographa since it is apparently manifest that the Jews never cut of the Hagiography from the Catalogue of Divine Scripture The same observation is to be made in the Preface of St. Jerom upon Judith where instead of Hagiographa it ought to be read Apocrypha For thus the words run at this day Among the Hebrews the Books of Judith is reckon'd among the Hagiographa whose authority is not so sufficient to strengthen the convincement of those things which give occasion of dispute If the authority of that Book be not sufficient to confirm our Faith certainly it can be none of the Hagiographa which without Controversie are accounted Canonical and inspir'd among the Jews but of the number of the Apocrypha which are of dubious and uncertain Credit as St. Jerom thought the Books of Judith and Tobias to be Thus much concerning the Apocryphal Books upon which we have insisted longer then the purpose of our Subject required But we did not think it a deviation from our Argument to unfold a Dispute highly intreagu'd by the Contentions of
the Disputants But now it was not enough for the most Learned Vossius to have feign'd new Prophets much more quick sighted then the ancient ones but he must now produce a new Order of the Books of Sacred Scripture hither to unheard of The Books of Moses according to his own Opinion make five Volums and not one as the Jews believe and to prevent any man from calling this in question he produces most convincing reason 's for this new Distrubution For it is manifest saith He even out of the Sacred Writings themselves that as other Nations so also the ancient Jews wrote their Books not upon folded Paper which is a modern Invention but in rolls and continued Skins What reason there was for Vossius to have recourse to the Antient Hebrews I do not understand when even in our times the Jews make use of Rolls of the same nature as to the Books which they make use of in their Synagogues yet for all that they do not divide the Law into five Volums but comprehend it in one Volum according to that ancient Custom which was observ'd even in Christs time By and by proceeding a little farther the Learned Gentleman affirms that in the time of Aquila whom he calls a most impertinent Interpreter the Jews or else Aquila himself invented a most wicked and idle division of the Sacred Books in hatred to Daniel's weeks and that they perverted the sense and order of Scripture by introducing a New Distribution that is to say of the Law the Prophets and the Hagiographers Now whether a new distribution of the Books so the Books be entire let the perspicacious judge But least I may seem to carp at small things I say it is much more probable that Aquila in his Translation of the sacred Writings observ'd that order which according to the method of that Age the Hebrew Copies set before him when there appear'd no reason for the Charge But he did that says Vossius in hatred of Daniel's weeks whom he cast into the last place almost among the Hagiographers as if the Jews did not give the same Credit to the Prophesies of Daniel concerning the Messiah as the Christians Vossius admires at their simplicity who believe the Rabbins asserting the Ketuvim or Books of the Hagiographers to have been written by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost If you consult the Rabbins saith he they will lâ—ugh at ye as such as cannot choose but know what they mean by the Holy Ghost Why has not Vossius now become a Rabbinist cited those Rabbins that we might understand by them what they mean by the word Ketuvim I know indeed the Jews do not agree concerning the genuine signification of that word though all believe that the Ketuvim or the Hagiographers are no less Divine and Canonical then the rest of the Books of the Old Testament The most subtle Abravenâ—l unfolds this Riddle They were call'd Ketuvim because they were written by the Holy Ghost but if it be so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ramb. in More Nev. the word Ketuvim was not design'd that those Speeches were written in a book not receiv'd by word of Mouth but to denote that they were written in the Holy Spirit and in that degree neither was the Divine Spirit with them but at the vory time of their Writing in this Language and Wisdom R. David Kimchi affirms that Prophesie is divided into several Degrees of which one exceeds another Which Degrees R. Moses Ben Maimon more subtlely explains Praef. in Psal But leaving these subtleties which were taken from the Philosophy of Aristotle and Averrhoes it is certain that the Jews agree with Josephus in this particular that all the Books which are extant in their Canon are truly Divine and Prophetical because they were written by the Prophets For which reason R. Don Joseph Ben Jechaia Praef. in Psal who has illustrated the Psalms with his Commentaries and reduc'd them with his Fathers to the Classes of the Kotuvim or Hagiographers compares them with the Law of Moses and thence infers the cheifest Dignity of the Psalms Therefore saith that Rabbi the greater is the Dignity of that Book because it follows the Divine Law and imitates the form and perfection of it Which is confirm'd by the Authority of the Fathers who seem to have preferr'd the Psalms before the Prophets themselves while they joyn them to the Pentateuch of Moses Therefore by the Confession of the Rabbys themselves neither is the Authority either of David or Daniel lessen'd because they are not number'd in the Classis of the Prophets For the last quoted Joseph adds these words in the same place Nor is it a wonder that the Book of Psalms contains several Prophecies of the time of the Messiah seeing that there are several Prophecies extant in the Holy Spirit concerning future things By this means the Jews will easily be reconcil'd with the Jews And which seems to be worthy observation the Talmudic Doctors will have the Book of Job to be written by Moses which nevertheless they place in the Classis of the Ketubim or Hagiographers Who would think that Vossius of a Rabynist should become a Talmudic Doctor He earnestly maintains That the Jews by the Confession of the Ancient Rabbys expung'd many places in the Holy Writings and alter'd the Sense and Words Interest so perswading No Man shall find any thing feigned by me says the Talmudic Gentleman whoever he be that Consults the Talmudic Books wherein he shall read these words in several places It is good that a Letter be pull'd up out of the Law that the Name of God may be sanctify'd But it is not for all Men to have recourse to the Talmudic Books like the most learned Vossius I had thought that decree of the Talmudists might have been rightly explain'd by the Words of R. Moses Ben Maimon who with most of the Jewish Rabbys so far defends the Immutability of the Mosaic Law that he believes that some of its Constitutions may be for a time suspended by the Authority of the Grand Sanhedrim Ramb. More Nev part 3. c. 41. That Talmudic Rabby asserts That God indeed Deut. 4. forbad that any one should add to his Word or detract from it but that he gave permission to the Wise Men of all Ages and Times or to the Supream Judicatory to set bounds to the Judgments to be Established by the Law in some things which they desire to innovate to preserve the Authority of the Law Farther That God gave them Liberty to take away some Precepts of the Law and to permit some things Prohibited upon some certain Occasion and Accident but not to Perpetuity These were taken out of the Latin Edition of the Book More Nevochim Published by Buxtorf After the same manner speaks the Author of the Book Entitl'd Cozri set forth also in Hebrew and Latin by Buxtorf For upon Cozri's demanding the Question How that Power of Innovating any thing in the
Joshua or rather by the Senators of the Grand Sanhedrim of which Joshua was the Chief are vulgarly thought to be added to the rest of the Text. For it was the Custom that the publick Transactions should be register'd in the publick Acts by those who were appointed for that Employment in which Sence Moses is said to have written some things in the Volume of the Law of the Lord that is the Covenant which he had made with the People To say truth there are many things extant in the Pentateuch which plainly declare that the Books of the Law were written by Moses Thus we read in Exodus Moses wrote all the words of the Lord. And in Deuteronomy After Moses had writ the words of the Law Exod. 24. Deut. 31. But these and many other passages of the same kind are only to be meant of some parts of the Law of which mention is made in those places as Simon has demonstrated Whence Jerom Oleaster Prol. in Pent. a great Hebrician and perfectly read in Scripture Learning denies that it can be effectually prov'd by Scripture that Moses himself was the Author of the Law which we have under his Name Next to the Pentateuch is the Book call'd Joshua and which the following words seem to prove to have been written by Joshua And Joshua wrote all these words in the Volume of the Law of the Lord. That is Joshua after Moses's Decease Jos 24.26 or his Scribes by his Order set down in the publick Registers the Transactions of that Time in which Sense they are said to be as it were added to the Volume of the Law Nevertheless 't is strange to see how they wrangle among themselves who handle this Argument so that even St. Austin himself durst not possitively affirm Joshua to be the Author of the Book which goes vulgarly under his Name Whether that Book says he which is call'd Jesus Nave were written by him meaning Joshua or by some other person Theodoret affirms That it was not written by Joshua but taken out of some later Book and among the modern Authors the learned Massius asserts That it cannot be said that all those things which are now extant in the History of Joshua Com. in c. 10. Jos proceeded from himself He also confirms what has been already mentioned concerning the publick Scribes and their Employments and extends his Arguments to other Books of the Scripture The Opinion of the Talmudists is That Joshua wrote his own Book and eight Verses of the Law But the judicious Rabby Isaac Abravanel scrupl'd not to differ from them and asserts himself induc'd so to beleive not only by those words which are added at the end of the Book of Joshua And after these things Joshua the Son of Nun Dy'd but by reason of many other passages that frequently occur in the Context it self of which he denyes that Joshua could be the Author Of which sort the first is that concerning the twelve stones which he set up in the midst of Jordan Jos 4.9 of which it is said and they remain there to this Day To which the Author of the Book of Joshua presently adds these words Jos 6.8 The Name of that place is call'd Galgala to this present Day I pass by many other expressions of the Nature frequent in the History of Joshua and which Abravanel maintains could not be written by Joshua Had Joshua saith he wrote all these things would he have said To this present day To these things he adds what we read in the History of Joshua concerning the Danites taking Lachish by assault which nevertheless did not happen till toward the end of the Judges and consequently long after Joshua's Death But these and other passages of the same Nature do not serve so much to prove that Joshua or rather the Scribes that were under him Register'd the publick Transactions of the time as to shew that other Scribes afterwards review'd those publick Acts and added several clauses and intervening passages to unite the Sense and Series of History and for Explanations sake Nor does the Book Entitl'd Shoftim or Judges seem to be written but in the same manner as being full of the same Expressions Wherefore D. Huetius follows the judgment of Dorotheus in this particular who affirms That the Scribes of that Time Recorded in Commentaries the Transactions which happened under the Judges out of which Saemuel afterwards composed the Book of Judges Who that Dorotheus was I do not at present Dispute it is enough from thence to infer that Simon 's Opinion was not of Yesterday by which he constitutes publick Scribes in the Hebrew Nation who Recorded the publick Transactions of their Times whose Collections other Scribes or Prophets embody'd into those Histories which go now under the Names of Joshua Judges Samuel and Kings this opinion is confirmed by the Syrians For we read at the end of the Syriac Exemplar these words added But for the Book of Judges Excâ—d Usser Tom. 6. Pol Angl. though the Name of the Author be not set down it is known that it was wrote by some of the Priests of the Sons of Aaron who in the times of those Judges officiated in the Priesthood The last cited Dorotheus refers the Book of Ruth also to the same Scribes which seem much more probable then the Opinions of those wherein there is nothing of sure Foundation Concerning both thus Sixtus Senensis It is said that Samuel Collected the Book of Judges and added the Story of Ruth the Moabitess Bib. 8. lib. 3. Some think that Ezekiel others that Esdras was the Author of both Books As for the Books of Kings Theodoret has made these Remarks upon them That there were many Prophets among the Hebrews of which every one wrote the Transactions of his Age and hence it came to pass that the first Book of Kings is call'd both by the Hebrews and Syrians The Prophesie of Samuel soon after he adds They therefore who wrote the Book of Kings wrote them out of those writings long after as their leizure serv'd them And some while after he thus expresses himself concerning the Books of the Chronicles There were some other Historiographers who digested those things that were omitted by others which Book so written they call'd Parah Pomona the remainders As to the first and second Book of Kings which go under the Name of Samuel Sixtus Senensis adds these words The Book of Samuel is said to be written by the Prophet Samuel partly by the Prophets Nathan and Gad. Samuel Collected the Acts of Eli Saul David and his own which are related in the first Book of Kings to his Death Nathan and Gad wrote the Books of Kings from the Death of Samuel to the end of the second Book What Sixtus Senensis writes in this place though in general I may not think them remote from Truth yet if they be specially weigh'd they cannot be sure in every part for that as to
was only a Translation of his into Hebrew out of some Forreign Language But letting these things pass if we may conjecture in a matter so obscure I believe they are nearest the Truth who fix the Composition of this Piece in the Time of the Babylonish Captivity For the Language is hardly Hebrew and abounding in Chaldee Phrases bespeaks a Person who by Forreign Converse had corrupted his Hebrew Speech In which Sense the words of St. Jerom are to be explained when he tells us That he Translated Job out of the Hebrew Arabic and Syriac Language To which we may add that the Jews whose Affairs were then in a desperate Condition took great Delight in reading that Book as the Comfort of their Afflictions Therefore the Author relates an Action that lately happed and because he takes upon him to perform the part of a Poet tho the Argument be not fictitious yet he makes use of Figures and florid Language mixing sometimes Probabilities with Truth observing only a Decorum between the Interlocutors The Prophets by St. Austin are call'd Pronouncers or Publishers of the word of God to Men. For they Quest in ex as the Interpreters of the Divine Law preach'd to the People whom they taught the Law of Moses confirming his Authority Then what Threats and Promises Moses had only in general promulgated they applyed to the several occasions of their Times and that after the manner of Orators which is the reason that they abound in Comparisons Metaphors and Hyperboles and not content with a plain and bare Relation they amplify it in many words For saith St. Jerom the History and Order of things is not related barely by the Prophets Praef. in Lib. 18 Com. in Isai but all places are full of Riddles and Mysteries one thing is contain'd in the words another in the meaning that what you would think to run over with a plain an uninterrupted Sense you find presently involv'd in the obscurities of that which follows Nor did the Prophets so altogether foretell future things but that they frequently repeated things already done as is evident from the Prophesie of Zachariah which is a Relation for the most part of what was past or was at that same time transacted Thus that most dilligent Interpreter of the Scripture in expounding some words of the Prophet Amos blames the Exposition of the Jews maintaining in the same place a Prophesie of the future where there is nothing said but of what is past and sâ—on after he adds these words worthy observation In c. 3. Amos. We are under a scarcity of Sacred Authors for we read of many things in the Prophets which are not to be found in Sacred History In like manner St. Jerom attests that the Prophets in their Relations do not mind the Order of things as they were Transacted Among the Prophets saith he there is no order of History observ'd while we find under the same King those things that were last transacted Com. in c. 25. Jerom. first related and those things that were first in action last recorded This preposterous Order Pseudo Dorotheus attributes to the Scribes De vit mort Proph. who committed to Writing the Predictions of the Prophets as they receiv'd them from their own Lips as if the Prophets had not wont to write down the Sermons which they made to the People The same observation Cornelius a Lapide makes upon the Prophesie of Jeremy who believe that Baruch who was the Scribe belonging to that Prophet collected all his Prophesies which he had preach'd at sundry times and embody'd them into one Volume not regarding the Order of time wherein they were preach'd And John Calvin himself confesses that the Prophesies of the Prophets never came to our hands digested into that order as they ought to have been nevertheless he does not believe it any derogation to their Inspiration They Calv. praef in Isai saith he who have diligently and judiciously convers'd with the Prophets will grant me that their Sermons were never digested into that method as they ought to have been but as Opportunity offer'd so the Volume was perfected He believes that the Books of the Prophets were preserv'd by the diligence of the Preist whose Duty it was to recommend the Prophesies to Posterity though the Preists were profest Enemies to the Prophets The same Calvin writes also that after the Prophets had Preach'd to the People they wrote out the Heads of it which was affix'd to the Doors of the Temple that all people might read them which being afterwards taken away by the Officers of the Temple was laid up in the Treasury for a perpetual Monument and Record of that Sermon from whence he conjectures that the Books of the Prophets now extant were Copy'd True it is that from the words of Isaiah and Habaccuc whom Calvin produces for his Witnesses this one thing seems easie to be prov'd that the Prophets wrote their Sermons plainly and legibly upon Tables that they might be read by all the people But of the Doors of the Temple to which he believes they were affix'd they make no mention at all Then again he Conjectures amiss that Summaries of the Sermons were only Copyed out and not the Sermons at length Though there is no skilfull Critic who will presume to aver that the Prophesies which we have now are entire The same Calvin and the Divines of Geneva farther conjecture that the Inscriptions which declare the Names of the Prophets and the Years when the Prophesies were pronounced were added by the Priests whose Duty it was to keep them safe for the satisfaction of Posterity These are their Words Il semble che ces Tiltres ayent estez adjoustez aux Revelations des Prophetes par les sacrificateurs et Levites qui avoit charge de garder les Prophetes au Tresor du Temple apres qu' elles avoient este proposees au Peuple suivant le contume des Prophetes It seems probable that the Titles were added to the Revelations of the Prophets by the Priests and Levites who had the charge of those Prophesies in the Treasury of the Temple after they had been exposed to the people according to the custome of the Prophets To which Opinion Hugo Grotius also gives his Vote There is only this difference between him and them that he does not attribute these Inscriptions to the Priests and Levites but to the Men of the great Synagogue who collected the writings of the Prophets and set down the time of their being written This seems more probable because it is taken for granted among all that the Senate where Esdras presided did add something to the Sacred Text by way of Connexion and Explication Thus also Thomas believes that the Inscriptions fix'd to some Psalms were inserted by Esdras Com. in Psal 6. and were done partly as things were then acted partly according to what happned Lastly it is is very probable that those Histories which are inserted in some of the Sermons of the Prophets were added by the same Senators when they review'd the Sacred Books and form'd the Canonical Scripture as now we have it which is the reason some believe those words were inserted in the 51. Jeremie Thus far the words of Jeremie Which conclude the Prediction of the Prophet in regard the following Chapter is no Prophesie but a History taken out of the end of the 4th Book of Kings And in this the Rabbies agree with most of the Christian Doctors For R.D. Kimchi testifies that those words which run on to the end of the Prophesie of Jeremiah do not belong to the Prophesie only that he who Copy'd the Book inserted here the story of the Israelites being carried away Captive Com. in c. 51. Jer. as it is in the end of the Book of Kings On the otherside Abravanel conjectures that Esdras or the Senators of the Grand Assembly were the Authors of that Supplement as the History of Ezechia was tranferr'd out of the 2 Book of Kings cap. 18. into the Prophesie of Isaiah From all that has been said it may be easily discern'd who were accompted Prophets among the Hebrew People what was their Office and Function and what their method of writing Moreover this also seems worthy Observation that the Prophets did not only preach to the People and foretel future events but also digested the Histories of their times and wrote them into the publick Records And thus Isaiah who wrote the Acts of Hosea bears the Title no less of a Historian then a Prophet or rather the name of Prophet among the Hebrews comprehends all those significations So that whoever was a revealer of the Divine will or foretold future Accidents or wrote the Translations of his Time was call'd a Prophet From whence questionless it came to pass that the ancient Jews adorn'd the Histories of Joshua Judges Samuel and Kings with the Titles of Neviion Prophets because they were written by Persons who being full of the Holy Spirit were call'd Prophets In which sence Josephus affirms that in his Nation Books were not written by every one but by Prophets only Jonathan also has rightly understood the force of that word who instead of the Hebrew word Navi Prophet sometimes mixes another word in his Paraphrase which signifies only Scribe as if Prophets were the same with Scribes And thus much concerning the Sacred Writers I pass by the Apocriphal Books which the Jews do not admit into their Canonical Number because their Authors as the word Apocryphal signifies are uncertain and hidden in obscurity Let the Learned Vossius therefore forbear to bark at the most worthy Simon a Person so well deserving of the Sacred Scriptures who has publish'd nothing concerning the Writers of the Old Testament but what has been already approv'd by Persons most Grave and solid and highly Eminent both for their Piety and Learning Into a wicked Heart Wisdom shall not enter FINIS
Testimony of the learned Jews pag. 12. Chap. 4. Of the publisht Exemplars of the Hebrew Context which are Masoretick Of the Art of the Masorites Of its Original and what Opinion we are to have of it pag. 22. Chap. 5. The parts of the Masora in relation to the Manuscript Copies are weighed and illustrated The true Original of the Masora pag. 28. Chap. 6. Other parts of the Manuscripts in reference to the Manuscript Bible are examin'd Their true Original and the Masoretick Lection confirm'd pag. 35 Chap. 7. Some things unprofitably and superstitiously noted by the Masoreticks are illustrated out of the Manuscript Copies of the Bibles pag. 44. Chap. 8. Some Examples of different Writings are produc'd from the Manuscripts which vary from the Masoretick Versions pag. 48. Chap. 9. Whether the Jews corrupted their Bibles of set purpose The Opinion of the Fathers concerning this matter examin'd pag. 56. Chap. 10. The Opinion of Isaac Vossius concerning the Hebrew Manuscripts is examin'd and refuted pag. 71. Chap. 11. Of the Samaritan Bibles their Targumim or Paraphrases pag. 81. Chap. 12. Of the Bibles of the Sadduces and Karraeans pag. 92. Chap. 13. Of the Targumim of the Jews or the Translations of Sacred Scripture and first of the Chaldee Paraphrases pag. 98. Chap. 14. An Appendix of the other Translations of the Bible in use among the Jews pag. 137. Chap. 15. Of the Translations of the Bible of greatest Authority with the Christians and first of the Septuagint pag. 140. Chap. 16. A more particular examination of the Greek Septuagint Translation pag. 150. Chap. 17. The Opinion of Isaac Vossius concerning the seventy Interpreters is examin'd The Vindication of St. Jerom. pag. 157. Chap. 18. Of the rest of the Greek Translations of Sacred Scripture and the Hexaples of Origen The Opinion of Isaac Vossius concerning the disposition of the Hexaples refuted pag. 172. Chap. 19. Of the Antient Versions of the Latin Church pag. 186. Chap. 20. Concerning the Authority of the Antient Versions of the Latin Church and first of the Vulgar In what sense it may be said to be Authentick pag. 193. Chap. 21. Of the Translations of Scripture us'd by the Eastern Church and first of the Arabic Coptic Aethiopic Armenian c. pag. 201. Chap. 22. Of the later Versions of the Bible and first of all of Latin Versions done by Catholick Divines pag. 209. Chap. 23. Of the Latin Translation of the Bible made by Protestants pag. 215. Chap. 24. Of the Translations of the Bible in the Vulgar Tongues and first of all of those made by Catholicks pag. 221. Chap. 25. Of the Bible done into the Vulgar Tongue by Heterodox Translators pag. 226. Chap. 26. Of the Translations of the Bible which were writ in the Vulgar Tongue and their rise from the Geneva Schools pag. 233. Chap. 27. Of the Polyglot Bibles pag. 240. Animadversions upon a small Treatise of Dr. Isaac Vossius concerning the Oracles of the Sybils and his answer to the objections in a late Treatise Intituled Critica Sacra pag. 249 CRITICAL ENQUIRIES Into the Various EDITIONS of the BIBLES at several Places and Times CHAP. I. Of the Bibles in general as well among the Jews as Christians THE whole Context of Sacred Scripture is remarkably known among the Christians by the name of The Books that is to say The Books so call'd for their Excellency above all others and these Books contain both the Old and New Testament The Jews however allow of no more than only the Books of the Old Covenant Of the Old Testament and those only written in the Hebrew Language for as for those which the Church has receiv d from the Hellenist Jews in the Greek Language they deny them to be Canonical and therefore will not admit them into their Synagogues Whereas the Church inspir'd with the Holy Ghost admits them likewise to be of Divine Authority As to which difference they who among Christians assume to themselves the Name of Protestants and Reformed rather chuse to take the Synagogues part than to joyn with either of the Churches that is the Eastern or Western And therefore the Christians have only admitted into the Church those Books of the Old Testament which they receiv'd from the Jews As for the New Testament Christ the first Author of it committed nothing of it to writing but his Disciples after his Passion made publick those Books which we call the Books of the New Testament The New Testament Now who were the real Authors of those Books some there are who very much doubt as if the Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John were not assuredly theirs For say they they would not then be entitl'd the Gospels according to Matthew Mark Luke and John but the Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John had they been wrote by them and thus we generally say the Books of Moses and not according to Moses But the Titles of the Gospels and other Books are plainly different For that the Gospel which Matthew published was not Matthews but Christs and therefore it is rightly inscrib'd According to St. Matthew that is to say the Gospel of Christ according to the Testimony of St. Matthew upon which the Christians ground their Faith Pauls Epist to the Romans But now to return to the Jews with whom the Oracles of God were first entrusted as the Apostle speaks it the Holy Bible among them is called by several Names For sometimes they call it Mickra The names of the Scripture among the Jews or Reading in which sense those words of Nehemiah are to be taken where he says c. 8. v. 8. And caused them to understand the Reading For though it be true that Nehemiah in that place discourses particularly of the Levites reading the Law of Moses yet afterwards that name was not unfitly attributed by the Jews to all the rest of the Books of Holy Scripture Sometimes they denote the Scripture by these words Gâ—esrim ve Arbang or Twenty four under which name they comprehend the number of the Books of Sacred Writ To which St. Jerom seems to have alluded where he says Which are not of the Twenty four Antient Praelections upon Nehem. and Esdr have not equal Authority with Divine Writ Now what is to be understood by the Twenty four Antient the same St. Jerom more manifestly declares in Prolog Galeat Neither is there any thing to be more frequently found than this name of the Sacred Writings which they generally affix to the beginning of their Manuscript Bibles intimating thereby the whole Context of the Old Testament Although Josephus a notable Witness in this Argument affirms the Sacred Books allowed by his Nation to be no more than Twenty Two Which seems to have been so concluded to the end the number of the Books might be the more readidily and stedfastly retained in the memory by the numbers of the Letters of the Hebrew Alphabet which are also twenty two Nevertheless it
Verses after another manner from that which is now made use of in the Masoretick Editions generally published in these days But this seems chiefly most worthy observation as to our present business that there appears nothing at all of the Points of Vowels which as it were confine the Modern Reading of the Hebrew Context within certain bounds nor in like manner any thing of those Accents which are now in the room of Points Titles and other late invented strokes of the Pen. Then again that there was formerly no division of Sections in the Manuscript Copies the Samaritan Exemplars sufficiently testifie wherein such kind of Sections are mark'd after a distinct manner Which had they been added to the Law by Moses himself as the Jewish Rabbies falsly imagine there would follow the greatest consent that could be as to this matter between the Jews and the Samaritans Falsly therefore the Talmudists pronounce that no Verse ought to be distinguish'd that was not distinguish'd by Moses For if it were so why do the Talmudists differ in this particular from the Masorethites who are said to have put a hedge about the Law Sig Le Torah Was it impossible that the Jews such resolute observers of their own Traditions should not be able to retain the same Tradition receiv'd from Moses and to preserve it entire in their several Copies R. Moses Nor is there any other judgment to be made concerning the Divisions of the Sections whenas the same Masorethites as R. Moses attests by reason of the difference of the Copies to which they trusted could not agree among themselves and Moses himself acknowledges that he found a very great Confusion in all the Copies that came to his hands insomuch that rejecting all the other Exemplars he stuck only to one which was thought to have been corrected by R. Ascer and followed it in every thing for the making out a Copy for his own use As for the Time when these Marks of Sections Comma's and other Distinctions first crept into the Context of the Bible it will be needless to make any over-curious enquiry For these things being only the Fancies of Criticks will obtain no greater Authority than what it can win from the consent and publick practice of the Rabbies for that according to the variation of Times and succession of Ages they were subject to various Alterations as being things that depended meerly upon the Judgments and Conceits of men One of the great Criticks among the Jews Elias the Levite that all these things had their birth in the School Rabbies of Tiberias vulgarly call'd the Masorites after the Decease of St. Jerom and the Talmudists so that whatever was publish'd afterward concerning the Antiquity of those Distinctions were but the fancies and conceits of idle people as if any other Opinion were to be conceiv'd in this particular of the Holy Writings than of the Greek and Latine Books For it was not necessary that Books because they are holy should not be permitted to come into the World without their Points and Interpunctions as if for Example the pointing of the Modern Latine Version which the Holy See has approv'd by her consent and has thought only fit to be retain'd in all the Latine Editions of the Bible were necessarily to be derived from the Times of the Apostles But we have said enough upon this Subject now to the Copies in use among private persons These also may be said to be of two sorts of which some were written out by the Vulgar Jews and some of the common people others by men that were skilful in their Language and for the use of those who were eminent in Authority such as were those who took upon them the Title of Nassi or Prince The first being written in a lesser Character and Bulk and not so carefully corrected as they ought to have been are found to be full of Errours And several such Copies as these are found in several Libraries of the Christians But the latter being done with great labour and cost and from Copies the most Antient and best corrected are far to be preferred before all others They are written in large and most elegant Capital Letters and which is a certain sign of a good Copy none of those words appear to be omitted in these which are added down in lesser Characters upon the Margin of the Leaf as in the Books of the common Jews which abound with those kind of faults For they being deceiv'd by the similitude of words and sentences following one another set down the maim'd and curtail'd words of the Context hardly minding what they write Moreover it is of great consequence from whence and from what hands these Manuscript Copies are taken More corrected Bibles For the Spanish are much better corrected than the German French or Italian For the Spanish Jews have been much more careful to correct their Copies than any of the other Jews besides that they are more curious in the neatness of Writing Which was the reason that Elias the Levite not a little practis'd in this sort of Study after a recital of several Copies of Bibles adds this concerning the Spanish Exemplars The Book Aspamia Elias Lev. Siphre Lu 〈◊〉 Choth is a Book that contains all the Spanish Exemplars for that they are much better corrected than others R. David Kimchi also makes frequent mention of these Exemplars in his Works and calls them Sepharim Madrigum or Books well corrected By which means the Spanish Jews have not a little polish'd their Language in imitation of the Arabians from whom they borrowed all the Grammar which they have lend in all their study and industry to the correction of the Bible The same Kimchi who was also born in Spain is much applauded by Aben Melech for the great pains he took in searching after the choicest and best corrected Spanish Copies Who saith he Aben Mel. in Michlol Jophi ever took so much care as he did in searching after the best corrected Copies that were in Spain Now how those Copies are to be distinguished and known from others is easily apprehended For the Spanish Characters are four-square and of an extraordinary cut like those in the Royal Bibles set forth by Plantin at Antwerp and those other of Robert Stephens which were certainly transcribed from some Spanish Copies The Italian and French Characters are somewhat rounder The German imitate the Gothick rudeness and may be seen in the Hebrew Books which were first Printed in Germany and the Hebrew Bibles that were Printed at Munster Those Copies are very frequent in Europe which are written in a larger form and bigger Letters with the Masora in the Margin Leusden Praefa◠in Bibl. Hebraic Amstel Octavo adorn'd with several Figures and small Imagery Some such Exemplar is highly extoll'd by John Leusden Hebrew Professor at Vtrecht from whence the Hebrew Bible in Octavo was lately Printed at Amsterdam And he commends it chiefly for this that it
has a large Masora in the Margin under the several shapes of Bears Dogs and Bulls and sundry other creatures But indeed more fit to be expos'd for Children to play with for the sake of the Pictures The Spanish Copies which are of best repute shew the Masora barely and plainly written neither are there any Lines therein that are drawn into the shapes of living creatures as in the last mention'd And therefore the plainer the Copies of the Hebrew Bibles appear so much the chaster from Errours and more corrected thy are For under these shapes of Beasts and Plants the Writer conceal'd his own Errours and Imperfections neither are they more accurate in the Text it self than they are in the Masora CHAP. III. Several of the Manuscript Copies of the Bibles are examin'd Their various Readings are approv'd by the Testimony of the Learned Jews Supposititious Copies of the Bible VVHat the Jews have invented concerning some Copies of the Bible wrote by the hand of Esdras there is no man surely in this Age but believes to be all meer stories As also what is related of other Copies preserv'd at Bononia according to Tinus of Ferrara or at Cabilo if we may credit others No less supposititious may we imagine that Chimerical Piece of Antiquity to be which the Samaritans attributed to the Copy of the Mosaick Law found at Sichem Several other Copies have been also found among the Christians who to defend the Latine Interpreter have very much commended erroneous and counterfeit Copies Thus Lindanus extolled the Copy of an Hebrew Psalter which was preserv'd in England and agreed exactly well with the Latine Edition But that it was plainly an adulterate piece Isaac the Levite sagaciously discover'd meerly by his knowledge of the Hebrew Language Lindanus stifly maintain'd that many things were corrupted by the Jews of set purpose and out of their hatred of the Christians and this he endeavours to make out from the credit of that English Copy which he did not scruple to affirm did formerly belong to Austin the Archbishop But Arias Montanus after he had long sought and at last found out that Copy expresses his grief to find that a person so judicious and learned should write and teach such Stories upon Forein trust Neither Ar. Montan. ad appar B. 6. reg saith he is the Copy Antient nor writ by one that understood the Hebrew Language but by some Latine Scribe that knew how by the command of his men to make a well-shap'd Hebrew Character and this not above fourscore or a hundred years ago A short Book in a short Hebrew Character commendable rather for imitation and neatness of Writing than the knowledge of the Writer where every word was so corrupted that scarcely one could be said to be true Whence we may collect that there is no credit to be given not only to the Jewish Rabbies while they vaunt the Antiquity and Integrity of their Sacred Books but also neither to the Christians though eminent otherwise for their Piety and Learning while they go about to obtrude false and counterfeit Copies upon the World instead of true The feign'd Antiquities of some Copies Lib. Juchasin seu Fanul Among the Jews also there were some true and real Manuscripts of the Bible which were not of that Antiquity to which they pretended Such was that famous and highly reputed Copy of Hillel concerning which there are these expressions in the Book Juchasin In the year 584. there was a great Persecution in the Kingdom of Leon at what time they brought away thence a Copy of the Books of Scripture which Hillel had wrote out by that they corrected all other Copies I saw a part of it which was sold in Africa many years after it seem'd to have been written R. D. Kimchi makes mention of this Exemplar as well in his Grammatical Discourse as in his Commentaries upon the Scripture and in his time he affirms that there was a Pentateuch drawn from that Copy which was kept at Toledo Also R. David Ganz and several other Jews applaud that Copy as being a piece of great Antiquity and Exactness And that same celebrated Name of Hillel impos'd upon persons of great knowledge in the Hebrew Language and Sacred Criticism R. David Ganz in Tjenach David p. 56. Cun. l. 1. de Rep. Heb. insomuch that Cunaeus calls Hillel's Copy a Book of Venerable Antiquity which R. Hillel Chief Priest or Governour rather of the Jews wrote with his own hand who came from Babylon into Syria 60 years before the Birth of our Lord Christ Schickardus also wonderfully extols the Antiquity and Exactness of that Copy and brings Elias the Levite for his Witness as if it had been the Opinion of that same Learned Jew that Hillel returning from the Captivity of Babylon had written that Copy with his own hand Yet for all this Elias the Levite was of a contrary Judgment in this particular who had slain himself with his own Sword had he pronounc'd that Judgment concerning Hillels Copy which Schickard would falsly make him guilty of For in that Exemplar of Hillel there are several Vowel Points Accents and other things of which Elias makes the Rabbies of the School of Tiberias to be the Inventors whom he believes to have liv'd after the Talmudists and St. Jerom. As vain and idle also are all those things which Buxtorf crowds into his Book concerning the Antiquity of Points to prove that Hillel was Contemporary with Epiphanius and before the Masorites of Tiberias As little to the purpose also does the sharp-witted Capellus teaze himself with sundry conjectures concerning Hillels Exemplar But these men through the want of Manuscripts seem incapable to determine any thing concerning Hillel his Bible though had they consulted the Books of only one David Kimchi who is universally read they might easily have apprehended that Hillel was after the Rabbies of Tiberias For that the chiefest differences of Hillels Copy from the rest lie in the variety of Point Vowels Mapphick and Dagesh and other niceties of the same nature which no person conversant among the Monuments of the Antients will affirm to have been invented in the time of Epiphanius And indeed both Cappellus and Buxtorf might have consulted the Comments of John Mercer who sometimes also commends the Hillelian Exemplar Nor would it be a difficult thing to produce many readings of the Hillelian Codex different from the Masoretick collected out of five Manuscript Bibles and those Spanish besides and of the best repute But in regard they are for the most part of little moment I shall pass them over in silence Only some few I shall select from the Book of Joshuah placed in the Margin of a very fair Spanish Copy written about five hundred years since though the Annotations or rather Variations seem to be of a later date Joshuah chap. 6. in the Masoretick Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is written at large Classicum or
not seem to be an Amplifier of Scripture-Variances I shall forbear to repeat them especially they being publish'd at the end of the Basil Bibles However from hence we may collect that the Hebrew Exemplars do not so easily agree among themselves that there should be no variance as most of the Jews and the Christians their Hebrew followers would make us believe whenas some of those Lections though not so many Various Lections among the Rabbins produce a different sense Now let us come to the Testimonies of the Rabbies which confirm the same Opinion concerning the Discrepancy of Scripture Copies R. Jacob Haim Praef. in Mas Mag. Buxtorf in Antior There are not wanting Examples of various Readings among the Talmudick Doctors drawn from the publish'd or Masoretick Transcriptions Of which some are cited by R. Jacob Haim which Buxtorf a strenuous Champion for the Masoretick Exemplar though unwillingly acknowledges nor will he have to be other than a very few and those of no great weight not contradictory to the truth of Sense and yet they spend the greatest part of their time in writing out the words either fully or defectively as they term it However among those few which R. Jacob Haim brings by way of Example it may be plainly demonstrated that there are some which alter the sense of Scripture But I may say that we should in vain go about to find out those various Lections in the Talmudick Work now extant which formerly might more easily be gathered from it For that for many Ages together the Jews have made it their business to reform all their Bibles both Printed and Manuscript by the Masoreticks as in the Reading those Books I have often observ'd However care must be that you do not mistake that form of speech frequently made use of in the Talmud Read not so but so for a various Lection For it is a kind of Allegorical sport very familiar with those Rabbies who reserving to themselves the substance as I may so say of the word have childishly invented several ways of Reading one and the same word If any one has so much leisure to animadvert upon those places of Scripture which are extant in the Talmudick Work there is no necessity for him to turn over those immense Volumes so inaccessible to many men for we have a Table which is entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein all the places of Scripture which are extoll'd in the Talmud are digested in their order with the place and the page where they may be found in the Talmud But what profit or advantage a man shall reap from such a tedious piece of labour I cannot apprehend unless we could have recourse to the most Antient Copies of the Talmud which have escap'd the impure hands of the Jewish Criticasters Far more Varieties of this nature are found in the Books of the more Modern Jews although they pretend themselves most stout Asserters of the Masoretick Reading Thus R. David Kimchi does not so devoutly adhere to the Masoretick Copies but that he sometimes forsakes them and therefore upon those words of Ezekiel the Prophet Le Mickdash Megnat he makes this observation R. Kimchi Comment in Ezek. 11. the word Mickdash is a word mark'd with a Pathack underneath the Daleth Neither is Megnat a Noun Adjective but a Substantive as I have found in some corrected Copies in others I have met with Camots and so it may be an Adjective Where we read in our Modern Copies the Earth was fill'd with blood Damim Kimchi reads it in his Copy Chamas or Violence yet he observes the other Lection to be extant in some other Versions Concerning the word Elgavis in the 12th chap. of the same Ezekiel he thus discourses The stones Elgavis are stones like hail-stones for in some corrected Editions the word El and Gavis are divided in others it is all one But I make too long a stay upon these things when there is nothing more frequent in that Rabbies Dictionary and his Comment upon the Scripture than such kind of Expressions in the corrected Book in some corrected Books and the like For more frequent are those which you meet with in the Commentaries of R. Aben Melech who acknowledges that he compil'd his Treatise out of the Works R. R. Judas Jonas Aben Ezra Kimchi and other Grammarians He in the 24th chapter of the same Prophet Ezekiel upon the word Harkach which in the Masoretick Editions is read with the Vowel Pathack under the Letter He Harkach is the Infinitive or Imperative of the Conjugation Hiphil R. Jonas writes that he found the same word in the Hierosolymitan Copy noted with a Camets under the Letter He Aben Mlech ad cap. 24. Ezek. v. 10. and so it will be the Infinitive of the Conjugation Hophal He also writes that he met with the same word in the Babylonick Copy noted with a Pathack and R. D. Kimchi testifies that he found it so transcribed in the corrected Copies From this variety of Reading may those words of Isaiah be illustrated Hashmen Leb Hagnam Hazzeh which the LXX Interpreters have translated one way St. Jerom another For they reading the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Camets under the Letter He read and translated the words thus Isa c. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The heart of this people was hardened Whom the Writers of the New Testament have imitated But St. Jerom as being addicted to the Reading of the Jews in his Time translates the same words thus Blind the heart of this people Hier. ad c. 6. Isa and with much anxiety demands why St. Paul in the New Testament spake not according to the Hebrew which he knew to be true but according to the Septuagint Wherein he shews himself a more tenacious observer of the Reading which he had been taught by his Masters For the various Interpretations of that place might have been easily reconcil'd and in the same manner as Kimchi and other Rabbies have referr'd the various Interpretations of the word Harkach to the difference of Reading For the LXX Interpreters read the word Hoshman in Hophal whereas St. Jerom read it Hashmen in the Imperative of the Conjugation Hiphil I might here add several other passages out of the Works of the Eben Esra sirnamed by the Jews the Wise who as he was a very skilful Critick so would he not altogether depend upon the Copies and Readings of the Masorites but he rather minds the sense than the Letters of his Copy For which reason to omit all others he believes that the Letters Aleph Vau Jod which are vulgarly call'd the Mothers of Reading were added or neglected by the Transcribers at their own pleasures Aben Esr Praefat. Comment in teg Nevertheless it is a wonder to see how carefully those Letters were observ'd by the Tiberian Doctors that is to say how often they were how often they were not to be made use of But that most Learned
Masoretick Labour to the Toil of Lucas Brugensis about the Latine Interpreter For he so soon as the Latine Edition by the command of Sixtus Quintus and Clement the VIII was compar'd with the most Antient best Esteem'd Translations and thereby refin'd from its Errours Bibles should be afterwards Printed with their Errours Nevertheless no man of Judgment will say that that same Latine Version is free from all mistake when Baronius Bellarmin Lucas Brugensis and others some of whom assisted at this Correction make no dispute that many Errours remain very necessary to be amended Some of the Jewish Rabbies indeed there are who highly commend the Diligence and Industry of the Masorites for that with so much Labour and Industry they took an account of the Letters Words and Verses of the Hebrew Context to prevent the future depravation of Holy Writ But who can thence think it possible to be prov'd that the Sacred Books were thereby restor'd to to their Antient Form True it is that the Doctors of Tyberias might number the Letters Words and Verses of the Books extant in their Time However those Books were only Copies and not Originals I will also grant that they were most perfect in the Hebrew Language and that they made use of the most corrected Exemplars of the Bible which by diligent search they could find out for the carrying on their Critical Design But yet their Materials were still deficient when they could have no recourse either to the Greek Interpreters nor to the Latine Version who in their Translations made use of Copies differing from the Masoretick Then again Tradition combates for the friends of the Masorites which the signification of the word insinuates as if by the assistance of Points and other Characters they had render'd the Reading and Pronunciation of the Hebrew Context receiv'd into use for many Ages certain and indubitable The Sect of the Carraeans also became strenuous Champions for the Masora of the Jews and the Exemplars set forth who though they reject the most of the Jewish Traditions as old Womens Fables yet admit of the Biblick Context in the same manner as it was reform'd by the Masorites of Tyberias together with the Titles Vowels Accents and other marks of the Masorites But though these and many other Arguments of the same nature may be brought in defence of the Masora and the Modern Context of the Bible and to prove that the Copies reform'd by the Doctors of Tyberias are no way to be despised because the correction was perform'd by persons well skill'd in the Language who determin'd the manner of reading the Hebr. Context not according to their own pleasures but the receiv'd Tradition nevertheless no man ought thence to collect that all other Exemplars of the Bible are to be reform'd and corrected after the Emendations of the Masorites as most of the Jews would obstinately maintain For the Greek Interpreters and St. Jerom had also their Masora or Tradition for the Reading and Pronunciation of the Hebrew Context who nevertheless very frequently vary from the Reading of the Masorites And which is worthy observation the most Learned Rabbies of the Jews R. Juda Jona Aben Esra Kimchi and others not a few while they illustrate the Scripture with their Commentaries are not so devoted to the Masoretick Lection but that sometimes they correct it and commend other Manuscripts which they call corrected though they differ from the Masoreticks Therefore as I do not think they are altogether to be favour'd who being offended with the Jews detract from their Copies so neither are they to be imitated who dote upon the Masoretick Structure and look upon it as a piece of Divinity For those upholders of Jewish Superstition shew themselves unskilful in Criticism Therefore the Modern Masoretick Lection of the Context of the Bible is not altogether to be contemned because it was not done by the Authority of men that were Prophets and inspired with the Holy Ghost for by that reason the Bibles of most of the Eastern Nations would be rejected there being as much to be said against the Chaldee Syriack and Arabick Exemplars as against the Hebrew There is none of them that make use of Tittl'd Vowels which confine the Pronunciation and Reading within certain bounds which were all invented by the Criticks for that without their help the Reading not being ascertained was subject to a humour fancy By this means the followers of that famous Impostor rendred the Reading of their Alcoran certain which before was dubious and uncertain And from these 't is very probable that the Jewish Rabbies had their Points and some other things which they introduc'd into the Hebrew Manuscripts to the end they might be read with more ease and readiness CHAP. V. The Parts of the Masora in relation to the Manuscript Copies are weighed and illustrated The True Original of the Masora THE great pains and labour of the Masoreticks consists in numbring up the Verses Words and Letters of the Hebrew Context for that by this means the former Variances being observ'd the Reading might be preserv'd more certain and constant for the future and the Holy Writings be free for the future from all alteration Of the Masoretick Art That the Words and Verses were numbred by the Masorites there is no question to be made The greatest Dispute arises about the Letters in regard that R. Jacob Ben Hajim Elias the Levite and Buxtorf who have with all imaginable diligence perus'd the several parts of the Masora deny that this part of it was ever made publick By whose Authority Morinus being sway'd affirms that that work was never undertaken by the Masorites which seems the more probable in regard the Enumeration of the Letters of the Hebrew Text which is already publish'd is very far from the Truth But that there was an account taken of them by the Jews before the Talmud was publish'd may be prov'd by those Arguments which are usually drawn from the Tractates Kidduschin and the Scribes where the letter Vau in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Gachon the belly Levit. 11.43 is said to be the middlemost letter of the Law Nor do I believe that part of the Masoreth to have been neglected by the Masorites For I observ'd it in turning over several Manuscript Bibles at the end of an Exemplar written about some four hundred years ago where among many other things collected out of the Masora there is the same account of the Letters which I shall set down in the same manner and words as it is there deliver'd that the Criticks may judge whether it be exact or no. The Sections of the Book of Genesis call'd Parshoth are reckon'd to be twelve the other Sections call'd Sedarim 43. Verses 75 34. Vords 20713. Letters 78100. and these words are in the middle of the Book Gnal Charbekah Tihijeh By thy Sword thou shalt live Gen. 27.40 The Parshoth of Exodus are numbred to be 11. the
Sedarim 33. Verses 1209. Words 16513. Letters 63467. the middlemost words Elohim lo Tehallel Exod. 22.28 Thou shalt not revile the Gods The Parshoth of Leviticus are 10. the Sedarim 25. the Verses 859. the Words 11902. the Letters 44989 the middlemost words Hannogeang Bibsar Hazab Leviz 15.7 He that touches the slesh of him that has a running Issue In Numbers Parsheth 10. Sedarim 33. Verses 1388. Words 16707. Letters 62529. the middlemost words Ve Hajah Haisch Asher Ebchar And the man whom I shall chuse Deuteronomy has Parshoth's 10. Sedarim 30. Verses 9055. Words 16394. Numb 17.5 Letters 54892. The middlemost words Ve Gnasitha Gnal Pi Haddabar And thou shalt do according to the Sentences Deut. 19.10 As for the rest of the Hebrew Context there is no number of the words But if we compare this Enumeration of the Letters of the Mosaical Law with that which is set forth in the Venetian and Basil Bibles you will find this to be very erroneous For that allows to Genesis no more than 4395 Letters whereas the former reckons up 78100. and therefore seems to be farthest from Truth But why such an indefatigable diligence in numbring the Letters of the Hebrew Letters with the Masorites should be call'd the hedge of the Law by the benefit of which it is preserv'd entire and uncorrupted from Errour or Mistake I cannot well apprehend Whenas they who were so anxiously laborious number'd in other Letters than those of their own Books which no wise man will look upon to be so free from faults or to be compar'd with the Original Then as Aben Esra rightly observes the Letters Aleph He Vau and Jod are frequently added frequently omitted according to the fancy of the Transcribers Certainly no man that understands any thing of Critical Learning will from thence only because the Masora observes such a word sometimes fill'd up sometimes defective presently infer that all other Biblick Exemplars are not of that value because they vary in their Lections but imbracing both Lections as probable will determine nothing certain in a thing of so much incertainty as being taught by the Examples of the LXX Interpreters Aquilas Symmachus Theodotion and St. Jerom who many times not only vary from the Masoreth but from one another And therefore the Jews and the Idolizers of the Masorites are miserably deceiv'd who believe that the Holy Writ was restor'd to its Antient Form by a bare Enumeration of the Words and Letters made by the Doctors of Tyberias and cry it up in the place of the Authentick Original Than which there could be nothing more fabulously invented especially after such a long succession of years that the Hebrew Language has been as it were buried and the Traditions of the dead almost entomb'd at least most strangely interrupted And therefore the more prudent Aben Esra rightly compares the Masoreticks that have so carefully enumerated the Letters and Words of the Hebrew Context to those who should number the Leaves and Pages of a physick-Physick-Book which would nothing contribute to the health of a sick Patient As for the Distinction of the Verses which appears in the Masoretick Editions I think the same sentence is to be pronounced as concerning the numbring of Letters and Words in regard that the Authors of this Enumeration have observ'd no other than the Rules of Criticism in distinguishing the Verses after the manner of the Grammarians But if we listen to the Talmudists they cry Every Verse which Moses does not distinguish we never distinguish But if that Tradition were receiv'd From Moses wherefore do not the Talmudists agree in all things with the Masorists in this particular Why also was not that Tradition of which Moses is feign'd to be the Author known likewise to those Jews that liv'd in Time of the Greek Interpreters and St. Jerom For they also differ in many things from the Masorites The whole Context of Sacred Writ was formerly in Antient Times written in a continu'd series of words as it had been one entire Verse as Elias Levita well observes As also were the Books of the Antient Greeks and Latines which may be collected from the Proem of Eustathius to his Commentaries Eustath in Iliad Hom. The Poem of the Iliads was and continu'd a well compacted body of words which the Grammarians so continu'd by the command of Pisistratus King of Athens and fitted as they pleas'd themselves The chief of which was Aristarchus and after him Zenodotus But because it was prolix and intricate and by that means irksom to the Reader they divided it into several parts which Sections they would not call the first second and third Book c. as Quintus did in his continuation of Homer But in regard the Composition was large enough for several Sections they thought fit to divide them into Sections under the four and twenty Letters And Illatius commends one Comatas who distinguish'd and pointed the Sentences of Homer's Poem Apud Leon. Allati animadvers in Antiq. Hetrus which never had any subdistinctions before as appears by the following Verses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cernens Comatas hos Homericos Libros Jam putrientes nullibi scriptis notis Punctis not atos Ordinans abscidit putredines Ex quo Periti non errantibus viis Discant quod par est discere In Antient times also the Verses of the Poets were not separated one from another by any such notes of distinction as we find in the Printed Editions Nor can the Grammarians themselves rightly distinguish the Odes of Pindar But why do I spend time There 's no reason why the Jewish Books in this particular should have better luck than the Greek Exemplars of the New Testament which 't is well known were but lately distinguish'd into Verses as is not only to be seen in several of the Manuscript Copies but also in many Editions that are Printed according to the Antient Copies True it is that ever since the time of Ezra the Verses of the Law were distinguish'd in Reading But for all that the Amanuenses never made any distinction in their Transcripts as was afterwards done by the Criticks of Tyberias to whose Laws the Jews are no more oblig'd than we to the Decrees of the Apostolick See which after the Correction of the Latine Interpretation decreed that no other Interpretation should be Printed for the future unless it were examin'd by the Vatican Standard Which Edict was for the procurement of Peace and Concord And to this as much as is possible they who gave the Roman Church her Name will adhere in explaining the Latine Interpretation if they be wise observing the Points and all the marks of distinction in that Edition Nevertheless that a clearer and more probable sense will rise from another manner of distinction they do not scruple to prefer it before the
abundantly declare CHAP. VI. Other parts of the Manuscripts in reference to the Manuscript Bibles are examined Their True Original and the Masoretick Lection confirm'd MOst of the Jewish Rabbies not unwillingly acknowledge that the Sacred Manuscripts of the Old Testament do not altogether retain that Form The Antient disagreement of the Heb. Bibles according to the Rabbies which the most Authentick and Original Copies represented and they believe that this Alteration of their Bibles happen'd after they were carry'd into Captivity at what time they had no Rabbies to read to them the Mosaick Law their Form of Worship being utterly abolish'd and their Civil Affairs in that deplorable condition that they had no time to look after their Books Therefore D. Kimehi frequently asserts in his Works R. D. Kim That they perish'd in the Babylonish Captivity and they being destroy'd nothing but confusion follow'd with many other expressions of the same nature R. Ephod R. Ephodaeus is also of the same Opinion who writes That in those Seventy years of the Babylonish Captivity corruption and confusion began to overwhelm the Sacred Writings For that as Kimchi says the Doctors of the Law were dead From thence therefore that before the time of Esdras the Sacred Writings vary'd in several places they believe it may be made out that Esdras who examin'd those Books left several Lections which he met with in the Copies of his Time unmedl'd withal in the Books which he himself examin'd and for this reason they give great credit to the differing Scriptures which were mark'd by the Criticks of Tyberias as if they proceeded from Esdras who was inspir'd with the Holy Ghost than which there is nothing more idle or remote from Truth Aben Mel. in liâ— 1. Paraliâ— This Aben Melech observes upon the words Diphath and Rodanim Diphath in the Book of Chronicles is written with a Daleth and in the Book of Genesis with a Resch Rodanim is written with a Resch and in Genesis with a double Daleth because Resch and Daleth are alike in their form and they who ever viewed the Books of Genealogies written in the Antient Times some write Daleth others Resch Therefore in the Book of Genesis the word was written one way in the Chronicles after another to shew that the word was the same whether written with a Daleth or a Resch Thus Jod and Vau are written promiscuously because they are alike in their figure And the same is to be said for the mute Letters Aleph and He in the end of a word as in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a He in the end which is the same as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an Aleph in the end For Aleph and He are agreed to be both Aspirates and every one makes use of them at his pleasure Thus has Aben Melech written almost word for word from the Commentaries of R. D. Kimchi The same Aben Melech produces many other Examples of several other varieties of the same nature which he testifies to have collected out of the Tractates of R. Judas Jonas Aben Esra Kimchi c. Thus he observes Alin and Alevan to be read in Scripture promiscuously with a Jod sometimes and sometimes with a Vau. Hemeran and Hemdan with Resch or with Daleth Jaakan and Vaakan with Jod or with Vau with many others which I omit for brevities sake They never minded saith he the change of a Letter or two and he observes it to have been frequently done He also makes mention of the transposition of words and upon those words in Chronicles Bathsceva the Daughter of Amiel he makes this observation Bathsceva the Daughter of Amiel she is Bathsceva the Daughter of Eliam 2 Sam. 11. which some read Barsceba Aben Mel. ad c. 3. Chron. others Bathsceba because they are near in pronunciation In the same manner Amiel and Eliam are the same but that the Letters are transposed which transposition of Letters is to be observ'd in the first place there being several Examples to confirm it in the Hebrew Copies of which the LXX Interpreters made use R. Levi Ben Gersom makes the same observation upon the word Jabes R. L. Ben Gersom I believe Jabes with an Ain to have been one of the Judges and to have been that person who in the 12th of the Judges is call'd Abetson with an Aleph For Aleph and Ain are near in pronunciation and often changed one into another Don Joseph also the Spaniard R. Joseph Comment in Chron. in his Exposition of the Book of Chronicles inquiring why there appears so much difference in the Genealogies between that Book and the Books of Moses Joshua Samuel and Kings unfolds this question in these words That Esdras seem'd to have found those words or hard names in some Compendium and so wrote them down as he found them Then observing a vast difference of names and things he presently adds Neither ought that to be a wonder for that in the Series of many Ages great alterations happen both of names and things But Esdras wrote down those Families in the same manner as he found them scatter'd in little Manuals some out of one place some out of another and in words abbreviated And therefore the Family which he mentions is described in many places without order and method Lastly The same Rabbi believes that the Jews had forgot their Genealogies and that Esdras wrote what occurr'd to his memory though it were written without order R. Jos ad l. 1. Chron. c. 9. and at several times And therefore most of the Jewish Rabbies rather chuse to accuse the Books which they believe Esdras made use of in digesting the Context of the Bible than the oscitancy and carelesness of the Scribes that came after In this indeed the Fathers of the Church agree with those Jews that both ascribe to Esdras the Title of Restorer of the Sacred Context at that time in great confusion only the Fathers believe that being inspir'd with a Prophetical Spirit he reform'd it from many faults In Prâ—fat in Psal That most admirable Esdras saith Theodoret transcrib'd those Sacred Writings which by the carelesness of the Jews and the Impiety of the Babylonians were entirely corrupted And these are rather to be believ'd than the hair-brain'd Jews who will have Esdras to publish the Scriptures deprav'd and corrupted as they were with all their faults and so they attribute all those various Lections which the Masorites denote under the terms of Keri and Cetib to the same Esdras as if those various Readings which the Criticks daily remark upon the Margins of their Books were to be attributed to men inspir'd by God We must therefore conclude that the Masorites of Tyberias by the help of the Antient Copies and assistance of good Judgments corrected what Errours had crept into the Copies of their Times through the Ignorance of the Scribes But bearing a Veneration too superstitious toward the Sacred
Writings they durst not insert into the Context the various Lections though the truth of their Authority were past controversie but plac'd them in the Margin of their Bibles with this mark Keri The Original of the various Lections in the Margins of the Heb. Bibles which is as much as in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 write intimating thus the true Lection of the word For Keri is the same as in Latine Lectio or Reading And that this is true the Manuscript Exemplars of the Bibles prove especially the Spanish which are Printed without the greatest part of those Alterations which are mark'd Keri So that by the help of those the Masoretick Bibles now extant might easily be reduc'd to their former form Nor will it be amiss here to produce some Examples of those various Lections compar'd with the Spanish Exemplar elegantly set forth about some 10 years since to which purpose let us make use of the Book of Joshuah The Masorites have mark'd the word * My Sisters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Josh 2.10 with a censorious mark by putting Keri in the Margin to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but erroneously for that in several other places of the Law as in the plural Achoth in the 16th chapter of Ezekiel it is written without any Masoretick mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thy Sisters and so in Joshuah it is truly written Achothai my Sisters and needs no emendation For that way of writing is not erroneous from the Masora it self In the 4th verse of the 3d chapter of Joshua in the Context is written * Between it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Keri in the Margin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if the Letter Jod had been omitted in the latter end of the word which is really read in the Spanish Copy whence we may manifestly perceive the Original of the Masoretick Annotation In the same chapter v. 16. as well in the Manuscript as Masoretick Edition it is written in the Context * The proper name of a City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Keri in the Margin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the City Adam In which manner the sense teaches us it should be read so that that fault might easily be corrected without the help of other Copies by reason of the similitude between the Letters Mem and Beth especially in some Manuscripts where the Letters are dotted at the top like the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the 4th chap. v. 18. the word is in the Context Bagnaloth the Keri against it is Cagnaloth as they ascended out as it is really written in the Spanish Bible with the Letter Caph and not with the Letter Beth. But in other Spanish Exemplars which I have consulted I find it written Bagnaloth with a Beth though without the Masoretick note Wherefore in this place the Masorite Exemplars vary which is evident by the absence of the Keri upon this place in some of the Bibles extant Chap. 5. v. 1. in the Context it is Gnal Gnabranou the Keri reads it Gnabram till they passed over as it is without emendation in the Spanish Edition Chap. 6. v. 8. the Context reads the word Thok'gnau the opposite Keri reads it Thok'gnei as if Vau had crept in instead of Jod which Reading the Spanish admits without any more trouble Chap. 8. v. 16. the Context reads Ba Gnair the Keri alters it Ba Gnai in Ai as if the Resch were to be cast away which the Spanish Edition does to their hands Chap. 10. v. 8. the Context reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over against which Jathir Jod cast away Jod which the Spanish Copy does without intimation which confirms the exactness of the Masoretick Corrections Chap. 15. v. 47. the Context reads Hajam Hagabol the Keri alters it Hagadol the Great Sea as it is read in the Spanish Edition So that the Doctors of Tyberias did not make their Corrections out of their own brains but took them from the choicest Manuscript Exemplars The rest I omit for fear of being tedious For thus it is manifest what we may think of the Keri and Cetib or the written and read being the marks of the Doctors of Tyberias And that it may be more manifest we shall add some few more Examples to shew that they made use of the most Antient and most Authentick Copies they could get and these out of the Chronicles with other Spanish Manuscripts Lib. 1. Chron. c. 1. v. 11. the Context read Ludiim with a double Jod therefore the Masora in the Margin adds Jathir Jod leave out Jod and reads it Ludim as it is in the Spanish Copy V. 36. In some Copies of which one was accurately Printed at Amsterdam by Judaeus Manasses over against the name Tsephi the Keri reads Tsephu with a Vau not with a Jod as it is in the cited Edition which confirms the Masora The same Edition also reads Dodanim with a Daleth as in the Pentateuch not Rodanim with a Resch as in the Vulgar Editions For Shephi v. 40. with a Jod this Edition read Shephiu with a Vau. V. 46. the Context reads Gnaiuth with a Vau after the Jod the Keri alters it Gnavith or Avith as it is corrected in the Spanish Edition Lastly V. 51. the Context reads Duo Gnaljah the Masora corrects it Gnalvah as it is in the Spanish Copy So that the Spanish Edition above recited observes no other than the Masoretick Emendations In the last verse of the 3d chap. the Context reads Hodijahu the Keri Hodavaihu as if the Jod and Vau had been transpos'd which Emendation of the Keri is observ'd in the Spanish Edition Chap. 4. v. 7. The Context reads Jetsochar the Keri alters it Vetsochar which the Manuscript Copy follows V. 41. the Context reads Hamgninim their Habitations the Keri in the Margin writes Hamgnonim as if the Jod had crept into the place of the tittled Vau. Which Masoretick correction is observ'd by the Manuscript Copy Chap. 6. v. 26. the Context reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Vau instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Jod nor is it otherwise written in the Spanish Edition In the same chapter the Context reads Tsiph instead of Tsoph corrected by the Masorak and confirmed by the Authority of four Manuscripts In the 7th chap. v. 1. the Context reads Jashib the Keri Jashub and in one Manuscript the Masoretick Emendation is followed But for these particulars let this suffice For it may seem superfluous to note the rest seeing there is the same reason for the one as for the other For if those Lections which are added in the Margin of the Hebrew Context in most Bibles under the Directions of Keri and Cetib were but compar'd with five or six of the Spanish Manuscripts which are to be preferr'd before the rest we should find all the Masoretick Corrections to agree with them Whence it appears that the Criticks of Tyberias in imitation of the other Criticks made
Criticks of Tyberias in vain turmoil'd and weari'd themselves in counting how many times this or that word was full and how many times defective For example they diligently consider how many times the word Otham is written at large in the Text they observe that it was written in the Law thirty nine times full or with the Letter Vau and thus they run through all the Books of Scripture But upon comparing the Manuscripts together they could never once agree among themselves after what manner the said word was to be written Moreover this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being fully thus written does not only signify them or those which is its true and genuine signification but sometimes with them as if it were written Ittham and were defective in the writing So true it is that in these words the sence and not the Character is to be regarded But above all there is nothing like the Superstitious niceness of the Jews in writing the word Ieruschalaim while they diligently observe all the places of Scripture where it is to be writ at length with a Jod and where without And yet neither the Hebrew Manuscripts nor the Masoretick Examplars agree one among another How many fictions have they raised about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Meoroth or Lights which in the Beginning of Genesis is written without a Vau contrary to the rules of Proportion and because the Jewish Rabbies have raised a thousand fictions from this manner of writing such a Notable word hence the Scribes have been very careful to observe that manner of spelling True it is that the Insertion or Omission of those letters which depend upon the pleasure of the Scribes seldom prejudice the sense and therefore in such cases neither the one nor the other is of any moment But sometimes it happens that they alter the sense As 2 Sam. 20. In the third of Sophonia where we read Nogue Sad as the Interpreters vulgarly render it from Jaga Rabbi Solomon expounds it remote or forraign as if it came from the Root Haga without any regard to the Masoretick reading There are not wanting some Rabbies who derive the word Nechiloth in the Title of the 5. Psalm from Chalal as if it were to be written without a Jod not much heeding the Rules of the Masorites for full and defective words I omit above six hundred of this nature frequently to be met with in the Commentaries of the Jews by which the Greek Translations of the LXX Interpreters and the Latine of St. Jerome may be Illustrated in many places Neither is St. Jerome to be commended for this that he blames the Greek Interpreters for differing sometimes from him in that sort of reading For this reason he taxes those who in the 14. Chapt of Isaiah for Angels as it is in the Hebrew Exemplar translate Kings because that in their Copies they find the word Malkim without the Letter Aleph not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Letter Aleph as St. Jerome had it But the Greek Interpreters were not to be governed so much by the reading of Copies as by the sense which was most proper to the place especially when the Manuscripts and printed Editions do not agree about the Insertion of the Letter Aleph As in Jeremy the Seventh v. 18. Where the modern Exemplars read Limleketh to the Queen without an Aleph yet in a single Manuscript it is written with an Aleph 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And hence arose those Masoretick observations of Redundant Letters CHAP. VIII Some Examples of differing Writings are produced from the Manuscripts which vary from the Masoretick Lections AFter that the Hebrew Language ceas'd to be familiarly spoken among the Jews and that the Chaldee Language became the Speech of the Country the Writers made many alterations in their Transcriptions by reason of the Affinity of the Languages Nor were they so curious of neat Letters as they were before From whence without question it came to pass that the Letter Aleph so much in use among the Chaldaeans is many times mistaken for the Letter He and added to words without any reason And from hence I suppose it happened that there are so many Chaldaeisms in the Hebrew Text as Shelechebeth Flame by the Addition of the Letter Schin according to the custom of the Chaldeans Magnath abin and Calabin instead of Magnathabim and Calabim with several others of the same nature which I omit that I may come to those other variations of writing frequent in the Manuscript Copies of most credit and Authority In the writing of these words El Elohim Jehovah Col and the like which are frequently redundant with the Greek Interpreters the Manuscript Copies do not a little vary from the printed Masoreticks Which because they are more frequent in speech are sometimes inserted sometimes omitted by the Scribes Thus in the beginning of the 16. Psalm the word Jehovah is thus repeated in one Spanish Copy Thou hast said Jehovah L' Jehovah Jehovah to Jehovah thou art my Lord but in the modern exemplar only once In the same exemplar Ezech. 30. v. 3. The word Jehovah is thus twice repeated The day of the Lord the day of the Lord approaches But the Masoretick Copy repeats the Lord but once nor does St. Jerom seem to have read it otherwise in his exemplars Neither do the Seventy Interpreters repeat the sentence saying no more then once the day of the Lord approaches On the other side in the same Spanish Manuscript Judges 1.1 The word Col is omitted and the Lection is thus The Children of Israel went forth but in the printed Editions Col Benei All the Children of Israel went forth But it is needless to repeat any more examples of these Variances which nevertheless St. Jerom writing to Sunias and Fretelas very carefully enumerates for the thing it self informs us that those sorts of words might easily have been added or omitted in the transcribing of the Copies Moreover in the Spanish Manuscript already recited toward the end of the 2d Chap. of the 1 Book of Chronicles the Lection is conformable to the Greek Interpreters and to what St. Jerom had read in his Copies Maacha Calebs Concubine brought forth Seber and Thirana The Spanish Copy reads Jaldah brought forth in the Faeminine Gender but in the Masoretick Editions it is written Jahad in the Masculine Gender he begot and so cannot be joyned with the Faeminine Concubina or Concubine Wherefore the modern Interpreters of the sacred Text who follow the Masorites over zealously for fear of erring against the rules of Grammar make use of this Periphrasis Maacha Caleb's Concubine of whom he begat Sebar and Thirana In the 3d Chapter v. 19. of the same Book where we find in the Printed Books Vben Zerubbabel with a Masoretick marking the margent denoting the Opinion of the Masorites that it should be read in the Plural Number Benei and not in the singular Ben in the Spanish Copy it appears to be Benei
in the Plural In the 6 Chap. of the same Book instead of Michael as it is in our Exemplars the Manuscript Copy reads Malachie and in another place instead of Vzziah another Manuscript reads Azaria In the eighth Chap. of Josuah v. 22. The Manuscript Copy reads Lo in the singular Number with this note in the Margent Lahem in another Copy which Lection is now observed in the modern context The Particle Lo Not and Eth which is the sign of the accusative case are not always written in the same manner in the Manuscripts as in the Printed Exemplars Of far greater moment is that difference which is found in 21. Chap of Joshua wherein there is a want of two verses which are notwithstanding both in the Greek and Latine Editions which that they ought not to have been left out the thing it self declares when in recounting the Cities allotted to the Levites out of every Tribe the Tribe of Reuben could not have been omitted Besides these verses are supplied by five Spanish Manuscripts of best note as also by the Royal Parisian the English the Venetian of Bemberg and Bragand in Quarto the Plantinian in Quarto Robert Stephanus's and that of Amsterdam and other Against all these the learned Masius opposes the Animadversions of the Masora and R. D. Kimchi From whence it is manifest that none of those verses were extant in the Ancient Manuscripts And Masius farther observes that none of those Bibles wherein those verses are to be found make any mention of Jordan Jericho or the Cities of Refuge Only in one Spanish Manuscript there is mention made of a City of Refuge which none of the exemplars hitherto printed allow But there was no need of mentioning Jordan or Jericho because the number of the Cities is made up without them Johannes Morinus who has commented more largely upon this place believes these verses to have been obliterated by the injury of time the negligence of th Jews which seems most probable But in the same place he erroneously observes that the two Comma's which were in the Manuscript by him cited were afterwards eras'd by him that transcribed it this annotation being added in the Margin we found not these two verses in the Hillelian Exemplar for in perusing that Manuscript I perceived that note to be added by some Jewish Criticaster long after the transcribing of the Copy who added to it some of the tittled Vowels and some parts of the Masora beside For that same Criticaster was desirous that his Exemplar should conform in all things to the Masoretick and to gain the more credit to his Emendation he cited the Hillelian Manuscript Therefore D. Kimchi seems more addicted then was needful to the Lection of the Masorites while he affirms that he never saw those two verses which are wanting in the Masoretick Edition in any ancient corrected Exemplar but only noted in Neither does Grotius weigh those verses with a sufficient accuratness suspecting them to have been added out of Chronicles to the Book of Josua after Kimchi's time and thence crept into the Greek and Latine versions On the other side Morinus believes them to have been translated out of the Book of Josua into the Chronicles by Esdras and afterwards left out through the carelesness of the Scribes Which mistake of the Scribes might in this particular more easily happen by reason of the frequent repetition of the word Vmematteh and of the Tribe c. Whence it came to pass that afterwards the several Manuscripts did not constantly retain the same order of sentences In a manner not much unlike to this the ancient Jewish Scribes made many more mistakes especially in the accompts of their families For the same words and the same Phrases often occurring to their fancies as they wrote great confusion by that means crept into the Books of sacred Scripture as may be easily apparent to any one that shall compare the Books of Chronicles with the other Historians For tho it be not permitted to correct the first from the latter yet is it most apparent that there are many things wanting in both that might be restored from the ancient especially the Greek Interpretations the authors of which had Copies differing from the publick Exemplars of the Bible Whose different writings I pass over in silence as being obvious to all and aiming only at those which may be taken out of the Manuscript Copies of the Jews And indeed those Errours have been in the Hebrew Codex of an ancient standing But when any Jewish Rabbi has got himself a name for leâ—rning among his Country-men presently taking a preposterous course they reformed their own Manuscripts by such a ones Copy rejecting the more ancient Books Such among the Jews were the Doctors of Tyberias R. R. Ben Ascer Ben Naphtali Hillel and several others to us unknown By this means it came to pass that the Ancient Exemplars of the Bible being laid aside the differences of writing in things of greatest moment were likewise lost All which things may be demonstrated from other Books of the Jews For if we compare the written with the printed and those which were publisht in several times and at several places 't is a wonderful thing to see how they differ one from another Thus the little Book entitled Jetsira or of the Creation which the Jews falsely attribute to Abraham the Patriarch differs egregiously from it self in several Editions and still there is more disagreement between the Printed Copies Moreover the Latine version of this little treatise in many things disagrees as well from the Manuscripts as printed Editions So that they who lookt after the Mantuan Edition found the vast difficulty of publishing that small Tract to consist as well in quantity as quality The same publishers also observed that the Interpreters who adorned it with their commentaries do very much differ in the reconciliation of the Text. And indeed in the Mantuan Edition there is extant another Copy of that Book not much different from the first In like manner if you compare the Manuscript Copies of that famous piece entitl'd Zohar either with themselves or with the printed Copies you will find a very great discrepancy among them Nor need you look any further then the Edition of that Book printed at Cremona wherein the various Lections which are almost infinite are sedulously noted The same may be observed in the various Copies of the Book entitl'd Cozri of which one was written But I shall insist no longer upon these things Certainly the extream diligence and Industry of the Jews is highly to be applauded who have so studiously observed the readings of various Exemplars On the other side they were highly to be blamed who making no mention of the Books from whence they took their Editions make corrections of them as they think fit themselves Therefore I would have it that those places of sacred Text which bad Connexion tells us to be false or corrupted should be restored
presume to alter the expositions of your Fore-Fathers who lived with Ptolomy King of Egypt saying that it is not so in the Scripture as they translated it but behold a young Woman shall conceive c. Now there by Scripture is meant nothing but the version of Aquila to which the Jews always adher'd in their disputes with the Christians In like manner Justin accuses the Jews to have eras'd out of their Bibles these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à ligno from the wood Psal 95. But if we consider the matter more attentively those words seem rather to have been obtruded upon the place then omitted And therefore they must of necessity be deceived who too unwarily follow Justin Martyrs opinion too peremptorily giving his Judgment upon things which he did not altogether so well understand I should for my part rather hearken to Trypho the Jew whom Justin brings in answering his Dialogue concerning the mutilation of the Scripture done by the Princes of the Jews The thing seems incredible I say it seems to be incredible it is more horrible then casting the Molten Calf or Children offered to Devils or the killing of the Prophets themselves Certainly the Jews had such a Reverence for their Holy Bibles which would not permit them to corrupt them on set purpose Moreover by the answers of Trypho which Justin supplies it is apparent that the Jews at that time so zealously devoted to the letter of the Scriptures and the subtleties of Allegories adhered the more closely to the Hebrew Text that they might the more vigorously inforce them upon the Christians For which reason they made Greek Translations which might more truly correspond with the Hebrew Text then the Septuagint For which reason Justin also many times praises as well the Jewish as Christian Version to the end that disputing with the Jews he might convince them out of their own Books Lastly there is no reason why the Jews should be called in Question for depraving the Copies of their Bibles if they have translated one and the same Hebrew word in that signification which was most proper for their business as when Justin in the same Dialogue objects against Trypho that the Jews read the 49th of Genesis amiss 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 donec veniant quae reposita sunt ei Till those things shall come which are laid up for him Whereas the words in the Greek version of the Septuagint are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 until he shall come for whom this is laid up For the Hebrew Word Shilo may be rightly rendered in either sense neither is it certain whether the version which Justin so confidently avers to be that of the LXX Interpreters was really theirs or no whereas the Roman Edition owns that for the true one which Justin attributes to the Jews where the Scholiast observes that it is the same in Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius Chrysostom Cyrill Cyprian and Austin among the Latin Fathers The next in order is Irenaeus who accuses the Jewish Rabbies L. 4. c. 25. for setting up their Law contrary to the Law of Moses wherein they add some things take away others The Opinion of Irenaeus and other places they interpret as they please But the blessed Irenaeus there explains himself and professes himself only to speak of the Constitutions of the Rabbies who as he says make a mixture of Traditions with the Precepts of God and confirms his meaning out of the words of St. Matthew Why transgress ye the Precepts of God through your Traditions In which place Christ never thought in the least of the depravation of the Bible Nor is there any more weight in any other of the Testimonies of the Fathers which are commonly brought to destroy the Jewish Exemplars Morinus tax'd and I wonder that John Morinus a most Learned person who in reckoning up the Fathers that thought the Hebrew Bibles to be corrupted numbers Irenaeus and affirms it from these words of his Which Jews had they thought there would have been Christians Ireâ—l 32.5 and that they would have made use of Testimonies out of their Scriptures would never have scrupl'd to have burnt their Bibles which make it evident that all other Nations participate of Salvation whereas the contrary may be rather asserted from thence For there by the Scriptures Irenaeus means the Translation of the LXX Interpreters which was made use of in the Synagogues which Translation being before the Nativity of Christ and made by the Jews he blames from thence the Version of Aquila as naught and deceitful and infers the propensity of the Jews to destroy the Bible from that Translation which they allow'd in hatred of the Christian Faith forsaking the Version of the Septuagint which was compil'd by their own Country-men So far was Irenaeus from asserting the Jews to have maim'd the Bible that he rather confirms their entireness and denies them to be really depraved only adding a conjecture of his own of what might have been probable Only this depravation of the Holy Scriptures Irenaeus acknowledges with the rest of the Fathers which got footing in the Hebrew Manuscripts when the Jews remain'd in Captivity and which afterwards was reform'd by Esdras Prince of the Great Sanhedrim the Hebrew Exemplars being restor'd to their former Purity by his Industry The third in order is Tertullian but the Arguments which he brings against the Jewish Manuscripts are so frigid Tertul. lib. de habit mul. c. 3. that they scarce deserve a Refutation First these words of his are produc'd We read that the Scripture being proper for Edification was inspir'd from Heaven that afterwards it was therefore rejected by the Jews as all other things that savour of Christianity Neither is it any wonder that they rejected any Scriptures speaking concerning him The Judgment of Tertullian when they would not receive him speaking to them However there is not a word of the Corruptions of the Text in this Testimony of Tertullian Only Tertullian endeavours to vindicate a Book of Enoch's which most men deservedly suspected to be an Imposture and they correspond with the proof which was taken from the Authority of those Jews who did not reckon that Book among the Canonical and therefore he says those Doctors condemned many things as Apocryphal which afterwards the Church receiv'd as inspir'd I know saith he that this Treatise of Enoch which attributes this Order to the Angels is not receiv'd by some because it is not admitted into the Jewish Magazine Nor did Tertullian say as his words are cited by Morinus that the Scripture was resected or mangled but rejected by the Jews For there is no mention there made of the Scripture mutilated but of whole Volumes which the Jews suspicious of their credit rejected And this is confirm'd out of the Editions of Tertullian's Works by Rhenanus Pamelius and others Nor is there any more strength in those other words of Tertullian This Heresie will not admit of certain Scriptures
a Prophet But the learned person never understood the reason why or in what sence the Jews did separate him from the rest of the Prophets However concerning this matter the Christians in vain dispute with the Jews For both willingly acknowledge that in the Book of Daniel there are many Prophesies of the Messiah to come and that that Book was written by divine inspiration as the other Books of Scripture were The Jews also feign the same things of David as of Daniel however they do not deprive him of holy inspiration Quite the contrary they publickly assert that there are many things in the Psalms which foretel the coming of the Messiah so that if there be any difference in this particular between them and the Christians the controversie is meerly about the name as has been already prov'd in regard they otherwise methodize the Books of Scripture than the Christians But Vossius stabs himself with his own Sword while he goes about to prove the Jews guilty of falsifying their Chronologie in regard the modern Chronologie of the Hebrew Text presses harder upon the Jews then that which is drawn out of the version of the LXX Interpreters nor do the Jews deny in their Talmudick Books but that the time is fulfilled and past within which the Messias was expected but they add that their own sins retard his coming These are the words of the Talmudists Talm. in Tract Sanhed in Avoda Zara This is the Tradition of the House of Elia The World shall consist of six thousand years Two thousand shall be of emptiness that is before the Law Two thousand shall be spent under the Law And two thousand years the Messiah shall reign But by reason of our iniquities those years are already elaps'd Vossius endeavouring to draw this Tradition of Elias to his purpose has err'd in many places For first he seems to applaud it as being delivered by Elia the Prophet or taken out of his Book which formerly as he says was numbered among the Books of the New Testament But this Elias was a Talmudick Doctor like Rabbi Hillell R. Schammai R. Johanan and several others whose names are set down in the Talmud Then it is a fiction to say that the 2000 years that preceded the Law of Moses ought not to be numbered from the beginning of the Creation but from the Flood or from that time that God told Noah that he would destroy the World For the Opinion of the Jews concerning the six thousand years Duration of the World according to the Tradition of R. Elias is in this place far different For the Foundation of that Prophesie is deriv'd from the six days of the Creation for that as God created the World in six days so the same World should endure six thousand years So that the computation of the years of the World must be taken from the first Creation of all things The Commentators upon the Talmud reckon two thousand years from the first man created to the time that Abraham abandoning the worship of Idols embrac'd the true Religion of one God Dissertat de Sept. Praefat At what time according to their computation he was two and Fifty years of Age. But those are frigid Arguments which Vossius produces to prove out of the Epistle of St. Peter that the beginning of the World is to be reckon'd from the Flood because the Apostle call'd that the Old World which preceded and the Earth which we now inhabit the other World I say these are very sorry Arguments and quite from the purpose But enough of Elia's Prophecy concerning the duration of the World Nor is there any heed to be given to that Book of the Prophecies of Elias which Isaac Vossius cajoll'd by the name of Elias the Talmudist believes to have been receiv'd into the number of Canonical Books Now let us examine his other proofs brought against the Jews whether they be of any more moment In the next place Vossius brings a load of Arguments to prove that the Jews have mutilated not a few Texts of Scripture and first he calls Justin Martyr for a Witness who writes that several Exemplars were corrupted by the Jews But as to what may be borrowed from Justin we have already made a plenary answer Justin never consulted the Hebrew Text neither could he as being one that understood not the Language as is manifest out of his own Writings But saith Vossius how bravely had the holy Martyr foil'd Trypho and the rest of the Jews with whom he liv'd had not those Crimes been true that were laid to their charge Vossius reproved But this way of arguing does not become a Learned man who in perusing Justin's Books might easily have perceiv'd that he had mistaken in many things But Vossius goes on The Prophecy of Christ which occurs Psal 22.16 where instead of they digg'd as a Lion is put in the room most of the Christians except Phanaticks and Semi-Jews acknowledge to have been deprav'd by the Rabbies True it is indeed that the Jews are call'd in question by most Divines for having purposely corrupted this place But far be it from me to pronounce those people Phanaticks or Semi-Jews who clear the Jews of this offence when Rabbi Jacob Ben Hajim Restorer of the Masora publickly testifies that in some Manuscripts of the Hebrews he has met with Caru they digg'd or pierc'd which is in favour of the Christians Nor is it a wonder that the Masorites chose that reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Lion which was most for their purpose I acknowledge the Translation of the Greeks and St. Jerom to be the truer yet the Jews are not to be accus'd of falsification for having made choice out of two Readings of that which was most for their turn In the words Cari and Carou all understanding Criticks know there is but little difference and how easily and frequently the change of Jod for Vau and Vau for Jod happens Besides that there are several other Examples of the redundancy of the Letter Aleph which were not unknown to the Mazoreths so that the Letter Aleph may as well fall out to be superfluous in Carou as necessary in Cari. Wherefore the Greek Interpreters and St. Jerom past it by as ridiculous or else perhaps it might not be in their Copies but the Masorites who acknowledge it made use of it Vain are also those things which Vossius alledges out of Zachary c. 12. v. 10. as if the Jews had purposely chang'd the Antient Reading which the Old Interpreters found in their Copies But there is no skilful Critick but will discern that this diversity happen'd from the varaince in several Copies while in some it is read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they have pierced in other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they have danced by reason of the easie transmutation of Resch into Daleth and Daleth into Resch Nor do I see any reason why for that or five hundred more of
greater than of the Synagogue Who can be ignorant that the Authority of the Church has not been able to make good the Purity of its own Exemplars or to justifie them from being clear from all manner of faults when the Version of the Seventy Interpreters of which the Eastern and Western Church made use has not been entire from the very time of Origen However I readily grant that the Hebrew Exemplar is to be chiefly preferr'd for the Christians borrowâ—d the Books of Scripture from the Jews and not the Samaritans Only the Authority of any Assembly whatever does not make a Book to be without Errour or Fault but only declares it to be receiv'd and fit for practice There are also other faults with which the defenders of the Hebrew Text load the Samaritan Copies For first they enendeavour to prove it mutilated by the Example of some few words and then they say that some words are foisted into the place of others They also object the differences of the Hebrew and Samaritan Texts one with another as also the carelesness of the Scribes who confound the Letters Aleph and Ain He and Heth and other Letters resembling in form But they kill themselves with their own weapons when the same things may be objected against the Hebrew Texts themselves In this the Patrons of the Jewish Text are deceived The Samaritan text vindicated because that out of a preconceiv'd Opinion of some of the Jews they think it to be free from all Errour which is to be only affirm'd of the Originals We have already shew'd you that the manner of writing of the Hebrew Context was very inconstant and perhaps more free than among the Samaritans who never hunted after the Trifles of Jewish Allegories Even in this the Samaritan Codex's excel the Jewish for that many things which Superstition foisted into the one are wanting in the other To this we may add that the Hand and Character of the Samaritan Text plainly proves Antiquity On the other side the Jewish Manuscripts being reform'd by several Ages at length obtain'd the name of Masoreticks Lastly the Jewish Text may in many things be illustrated by the Samaritan Thus Gen. 2. we read in the Hebrew that God finish'd his work upon the Seventh Day but in the other upon the Sixth Day which seems to be the more proper Lection Gen. 4. This Sentence which is in the Samaritan Let us go into the field v. 8. seems to be wanting in the Hebrew and many of the Jews mark this gap in the Margin of their Scriptures in these words pausa in medio versus a rest in the middle of the Verse I know that St. Jerom in his Hebraick Questions upon Genesis has observ'd this Pericope for superfluous both in the Greek and Samaritan Exemplars Superfluous saith he is that in the Samaritan and our Volume Let us go into the field But it appears that St. Jerom in these Questions where he professes himself an Assertor of the Jewish Text did not speak so much his own as the Opinion of the Jews Exod. 12. where we read that the sojourning of the Children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was 430 years the Samaritan Exemplar comprehends Their Fathers with the Children or the sojourning of the Patriarchs in the same Egypt Which Lection agrees with the Truth but is not Jewish But it might have been that they supply'd all these things in their Books and that they might have been glosses for the Explanation of the Hebrew Text which is frequently very obscure On the other side there are several things written with more freedom in the Samaritan Codex which seem to have been added for Illustrations sake out of other parts of the Pentateuch by some of the Samaritan Doctors Which Supplements without doubt argue the Copy to be vitious In like manner the word Garizim Deut. 17. which they have put in the place of Ebal which was the Antient Reading shews that the Samaritans were not over-religiously exact in their Copies whence it is manifestly evinc'd that neither the Samaritan nor Jewish Exemplar are free from all manner of Errour so that they are to be lookt upon as Copies of one and the same Book which may be useful to one another yet so that the Jewish Copy though it have its Imperfections is to be preferr'd before the Samaritan not only because all Religion and the Scripture descended from the Jews to the Christians but because the Exemplars seem to be less obnoxious to Errours However that ought to be no impediment but thaâ— the Jewish Copy may be mended by the Samaritan where a manifest Errour shall appear and the Samaritan Lection preferr'd before the Jewish if it be more correspondent to Truth For indeed the Reading of the Hebrew Text among the Samaritans seems to be nothing near so strict in regard their Copies make no use of pointed Vowels which confine the manner of Reading the Hebrew Context And it is certain that Points were a Modern Invention of the Jews nor are they added to those Volumes which are made use of in the publick Synagogues And there I think the Samaritans rather to be commended than blam'd for retaining their Antient form of Letters The Excellenâ—y of the Samaritan Codex Besides they have a Tradition for the Reading of the Text as the Jews had before the Points were invented by the Doctors of Tyberias Lastly The Samaritans excel the Jews in this that they have retain'd the Antient or Mosaick Characters of the Hebrew Language whereas the Jews upon their return from Babylon devoted themselves wholly to the Babylonian or Chaldaean to which they had been accustom'd which was the reason why the Samaritans first accus'd the Jews especially Esdras as a corrupter of the Sacred Text of Scripture But laying these Quarrels aside let us in a few words examine what may be thought of the first Hebrew Letters For the Samaritan Characters the sounder sort of Criticks and the Antient Coins of the Samaritan Nation fairly plead so that Joseph Scaliger gives them the Title of Asses who will not subscribe to the Opinion of St. Jerom where he says That certain it is Prolog Galeat that Esdras the Scribe Doctor of the Law after the taking of Jerusalem and restoration of the Temple under Zerobabel found out other Letters which we now make use of whereas till that time the Hebrew and the Samaritan Characters were the same This Opinion of St. Jerom concerning the Samaritan Characters was renew'd not long since by Guilielmus Postellus Blancuccius Villalpandus Morinus Capellus Mayerus Perescius and among the Jews by R. Azarias and several others Postellus who had long convers'd with the Jews attributes the cause of that change to the hatred which the Jews had to the Samaritans as being Schismaticks That Party says he who intermix'd with the True Religion the Worship of Idols In Alph 12. Linguar c. de Samar is adjudged by a grave and pious person to
Priest and the Levites and Scribes interpreting to all the people as it is most probable in the Chaldee Language Which Custom is still retain'd by the Jews in our Age dispers'd over the face of the Earth Thus the Spanish German Turkish Graecian Persian and other Jews make use of Spanish German Turkish Graecian and Persian Interpretations of the Text. And from the same Fountain I am apt to believe that all the Translations and Paraphrases of the Bible now found among the Jews deduc'd their Original For it is not probable that it should be the Original of that Translation which goes under the name of the Seventy Interpreters For the Jews of Alexandria who spake Greek made for their own use a Greek Version which afterwards fell into the hands of the Christians As for the Chaldee Paraphrases they were made at Jerusalem and other places near adjoyning whence they were transmitted into places farther remote Those Chaldee Paraphrases are highly esteem'd by the Jews even in these latter times especially those which are attributed to Onkelos and Jonathan But as to the Authority and Antiquity of those Jews the Learned are at variance among themselves and therefore because no man has handled that point more accurately than Elias the Levite a person long vers'd in the Chaldee Tongue and Writers it will not be amiss to translate so much of his words as shall be necessary for our purpose out of his Preface before his Chaldee Lexicon When the Jews were carried away captive out of their own Land into Babylon they forgot their own Language as the Book of Nehemiah testifies So that all the knowledge of the Rabbies and persons skilful in the Law was chiefly publick in the Babylonish Languages In that the Babylonish Talmud was compos'd Furthermore during the time of the second Temple their Language was for the most part Babylonish which when Jonathan the Son of Uzziel became sensible of he wrote a Chaldee Paraphrase of the eight Prophets for the use of the People Onkelos also wrote another of the Law But the Hagiography was not translated till long after in the Language of the Jerusalem Talmud as I shall afterwards relate In the mean time let us examine some things that concern the Paraphrasts themselves First why it is said in Gemara that Jonathan was long before Onkelos How Jonathan was one of the Disciples of Hillel who flourished about a hundred years before the Destruction of the Temple but that Onkelos was the Son of Titus who destroy'd the Temple And if it were so why Jonathan first paraphras'd the Prophets and did not begin with the Law Our Ancestors of blessed memory have reported indeed that he intended to have explained the Hagiographers but that a voice spake to him from Heaven saying Is it not enough that thou hast laid open the Mysteries of the Prophets Wouldst thou proceed to open the Mysteries of the Holy Ghost that is of the Books of the Hagiographers For that reason he did not paraphrase upon the Hagiography But then another difficulty offers it self why he did not expound the Law especially seeing a Cabbalistick Doctor Rabbi Menahem Rekanatensis has wrote in the Section Matzorang that he also translated the Law where he has these words And he sent a live Bird. For these are his words I found in the Targum of Jonathan the Son of Vzziel of happy memory and he let go a live Bird nor does he write otherwise in many other places If this be true it is a wonder how it should be lost in so short a time and not the least remainder of that Translation be to be seen We may also enquire why Onkelos did not translate the Hagiographers and why they continu'd unparaphas'd till the time of a certain Hierosolymite who explained them paraphrastically But who he was or what his name was or when he liv'd is not certain Thus the Hierosolymitan Interpreter who translated the Law is to us unknown whether he be the same who interpreted the Hagiographers or whether they were two Interpreters that liv'd at two several times Some say that Aquila the Proselite was the Author of both Paraphrases others there are affirm Joseph the Blind to be the Author of both And in truth I have found in Bereschith Rabba taken out of the Hagiographers and Prophets under Aquila's name as that Verse Life and Death are in the power of the Tongue Prov. 12. c. See in the Root Matztar Also upon these words of Ezechiel The Brides of their Adulteries Aquila's Targum reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Antient Whore See the Root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus Aquila also interprets some of the Garments of which Isaiah makes mention But there is no mention of Rabbi Joseph 's Paraphrase in Bereschith Rabba for he was not yet alive But there is mention of it in Gemara upon certain Verses of the Prophets and Hagiographers which are not found in the Verses of the Law Know however that the Language of Onkelos 's Paraphrase differs in nothing from the Language of Jonathans For both speak the Babylonish Idiom as do the Books of Daniel and Esdras yet their Language is much more pure and elegant than that of the rest of the Targums As for the Hierosolymitan Targum it differs very much from the Babylonish in regard it is compos'd of several Languages the Greek the Roman and the Persian And because so many Languages are found to be in it this mixture seems to me to have begun from that time when those Empires had the Dominion over Jerusalem Therefore is that Language call'd the Jerusalem Targum for that in that same mixture Rabbi Jonathan compos'd the Jerusalem Targum about 300 years after the destruction of Jerusalem At what time every body knows that Jerusalem was subject to those Nations as we find in the Book of Josephus Goronidas But at what time the Jerusalem Targum was compos'd upon the Law and the Hagiography is unknown to us whether before or after the Hierosolymitan Targum was finished I aminduced to believe that the Hierosolymitan Targum was never extant but only upon Job the Proverbs and Psalms and not upon the five Volumes for the stile is not the same although in these there are many words taken from the Hierosolymitan Author Thus far Elias the Levite who at length confirms his Opinion concerning the difference of the Targum of Job the Proverbs and Psalms which he calls the Hierosolymitan from the Targum of the Five Volumes by the example of the double Targum upon the Book of Esther of which the second bears the name of the Hierosolymitan And that he again confirms by the Authority of Rabbi Solomon and after a short discourse concludes that the Author of the Targum of the Five Volumes is no more known than the Author of the Targum of Job the Proverbs and the Psalms For first who Onkelos and Jonathan were is utterly unknown
or in what Age they liv'd Concerning their Antiquity also the Christians much dispute while others led by the Testimonies of the Jews believe their Paraphrases to have been made about the time that Christ liv'd upon Earth Others think them later than Origen or St. Jerom because they neither make mention of them Yet it might be that in those very times they were known to the Babylonish Jews where they seem to have had their Original but not being yet reduc'd into one body they were not made commonly publick And thus I have lighted upon some Exememplars of the Pentateuch to which there was added to every word of the Hebrew Text an Exposition in French yet a French Paraphrase upon the Law of Moses was never yet cited by any of the Jews And therefore it is very probable that certain Doctors of the Babylonian Schools expounded the Hebrew words in Chaldee for the benefit of the people out of which in process of time an entire Paraphrase was compil'd And to make me so believe the purity of the Chaldee Language wherein they are written induces me Which is to be understood of the Paraphrase only that goes under the name of Onkelos upon the Law of Moses and of that other upon all the former and latter Prophets which are attributed to Jonathan For that same Jonathan or whoever else were the Author of the Paraphrase upon the Prophets did by no means compose that other which is publish'd by certain Jews under Jonathan's name so different is the stile of both which I wonder was not taken notice of by Huetius and other Criticks who confound this same Pseudo-Jonathan with the True and Antient Jonathan as if one and the same Author had paraphras'd upon the Pentateuch and the Prophets But as for that story of the Talmudick Doctors of the Voice that spoke from Heaven to deter Jonathan from explaining the Hagiographers there is no wise man but takes them for the dreams of the Jews But first we are to take notice of what has been observ'd concerning the diversity of the Babylonish and Hierosolymitan Dialects by the same Elias who seems to set little or no value upon the rest of the Paraphrases which are extant upon the Hagiographers because they were written by men of no name To which we may add that their Authors frequently swerve from the words of the Hebrew Text foisting in the room of those Talmudick Fables and Stories of the same nature Onkelos and Jonathan stick much closer to the sense of Scripture and yet sometimes they are not so very careful to express it verbatim as Elias the Levite testifies But saith he The Paraphrasts do not always observe the Rules of Grammar For sometimes they render the Praeterperfect tence by the Future and the Future by the Praeterperfect tence and sometimes the Participle by the Praeterperfect tence and Future Sometimes they interpret a Verse as they judge most agreeable to the Targumick Language not so much minding the Biblick Context To this Elias adds the Testimon of Salomon Isaac whom we erroneously call Jarchi who observes Onkelos not to be very curious of the Grammar of Scripture but to have follow'd his sense and judgment in many things and sometimes those Paraphrasts have omitted not only whole words but whole sentences For indeed it is the common Fate of all Paraphrasters who translate Books out of one Language into another to follow the freest method of translating So that if there occur any difference from the Translation it is presently to be referr'd to its Cause and Original and we are diligently to enquire what might have been the Product of the various Readings of the Codex's and what might be alter'd according to the Fancy of the Interpreter However this is chiefly to be taken notice of that the Writing of the Chaldee Paraphrases was heretofore very confus'd and disorder'd For there was no Analogy of Orthography the Letters Vau and Jod being without any distinction made use of and inserted into words without any signification In like manner the Author of the Chaldee pointing observ'd no method in putting the Titles to the Chaldee Context as Elias the Levite plainly testifies who was the first that polish'd the Chaldee Language Now how difficult it was to frame a Chaldee Grammar I rather chuse to shew from the words of Elias himself than my own Many saith Elias ask'd me whether a Grammar could be fram'd for these Targumims I answer'd according to my own sentiments that I could not do it in regard the Exemplars vary'd among themselves as well in words as in letters and altogether in the points which differ'd almost beyond all possibility of reconciliation And that proceeds from hence because the Paraphrasts wrote their Versions without points which were not yet invented as I have truly demonstrated in my Preface to Masoreth Hammasoreth To this we may add that the most Antient Exemplars are all without points because the Authors of the Masora never pointed them as they pointed the rest of the Scripture But a long time after they were pointed by one or more persons tho of no note as they thought good Therefore there is no Analogy observ'd neither can there be any method produc'd for the making of a Grammar And indeed unless it were so who could imagine that from the time that the Targums were compos'd there should be no persons among the Jews who had Erudition enough to frame a Grammar as Rabbi Juda did who was the * In this Elias is mistaken in affirming R. Juda to be the first Grammarian among the Jews when there was before him Rabbi Saad as whom he afterwards nominates first Grammarian of note whereas before him there was no Hebrew Grammar But because he found the Sacred Books of Scripture noted with points and accents as also furnish'd with a Masora by the Masorites he began to assist the Israelites and to enlighten the exil'd Jews with his Grammar Him follow'd R. Jona and after him came R. Saadas Gaon and after them an innumerable company of Grammarians But there was no person who animadverted upon the Targum to correct what was amiss all slighted that business so that it came forth perverted which is only preserv'd Therefore I began to think of a way whereby every one might be able to make a Targum Grammar in such a manner that he might take his foundation out of such things as were wrote in the Books of Daniel and Esther and only upon that might build his superstructure and deduce his Grammar Rules if not altogether yet in part Soon after he adds these words in the same Preface In times past before the Art of Printing was invented there was not found above one Targum in the City and one in the Country Therefore there was no man who minded them But there were many Exemplars of the Targum of Onkelos found because they were bound to read two Sections of Scripture and one of the Targum every
have been less polite for suppose it ever so imperfect it had been kept in the Kings Library not altogether unknown to the King with thousands of other Books I pass by other remarks of learned Men especially Joseph Scaliger's of this Suppositious Aristaeus which Gerard Vossius well versed in this matter says are very weighty from whence it may be conjectured Aristaeus to have writ this History perhaps to the Idaea of a pious and a good moral'd Prince and this History ought not to be look'd upon otherwise wherefore the Author of these Fables mistrusting his Cause as being improbable adds farther I believe says he my Readers will suspect my credit but truly as it is not lawful to relate any Vntruth which hath been received so it would be a Crime to be silent in this Affair but as they have been acted so I have related them that I might avoid all Vntruths and for that reason I have endeavoured to receive the Truth from those who were privy to the Kings Affairs Truly he leaves nothing out that may corroborate his Testimony which he feared would be suspected by all But the Authority of the Fathers and other Writers of good Note and Credit who have inserted in their Works the History of Aristaeus as true doth make for it and it will be thought rashness to defend the contrary but we are not to consider what the Fathers have said so much as the reasons of their opinion for in things purely critical Reasons are of more moment than Authorities It is evident the Fathers were moved by the bare Authority of Aristaus or Philo and Josephus who writ from him but they had no reason to examin critieally the History of Aristaeus whether true Seing the Septuagint Translation which at that time the Church used against the Jews who had recourse to the Hebrew in their Disputations with the Christians did greatly support their Cause The Fathers had been ill advised if they had laid by that Translation which the Jews could not totally reject St. Jerom Jerom. a man well versed in all Learning and had studyed this Criticism for this reason contrary to the common Opinion of the Fathers did confute the Cels of the 70. Interpreters I know not says he who first invented the Story of the 70. Cells and then laughs at Justin Martyr who affirmed he saw them and looks upon him as a simple Man easily induced to believe the Jews Stories In like manner he differed in opinion from the Fathers for from the Authority of Aristaeus himself and Josephus he asserts the 70. Interpreters to have conferr'd and not to have prophesyed For says he it is one thing to be a Prophet another to be an Interpreter the first foretels things to come the other from his Knowledg afterwards and Eloquence Translates Neither doth he esteem them more than Tully who translated with a Rhetorical not a Prophetick Spirit Xenophon's Oeconomy Plato's Protagoras and Demosthenes's Oration for Ctesiphen neither was St. Jerom ever of any other Opinion although he may sometimes say they were inspired and that the Learn'd Man did judge this to be taken in an Oeconomical Sense may appear by several Places For the like reason although St. Jerom did seem to be of the same Opinion with Aristaeus Josephus and the Jews of his time that the 70. Interpreters did translate Books of the Law only yet in his Commentaries upon the other Books of Scripture he speaks of them no otherwise than as the Translators of these and this because he would not seem to differ from the common Opinion although in his Judgment less probable But some one will say if Aristaeus's History of the 70 should be look'd upon as a Fable what Foundation had it For certainly the first Author could not invent it without some ground when even the Fables of the Poets carry something of Truth in them The Original of Aristeus's Book Heins Arist sa Exod. 24. Heinsius thinks this Story of the 70. to have its rise from the xxiv chap. of Exodus where we find that Moses Aaron and the 70. Elders went up unto the Lord and from the words which in the Latin Translation are nec super eos qui procul recesserant de filiis Israel misit manum suam the Greek electorum Israel neque unus dissensit Heinsius thinks that number of the Translators and their miraculous Agreement to have risen hence but whatever Heinsius thinks I am of the Opinion that the Interpretors were rather Jews of Alexandria than Hierusalem for there are to this day some Egyptian Words as Abrec Remphan and others and because it was of so great a consequence it is very likely it was approved of by the Sanhedrim and there called the Septuagint Translation from the 70 Elders or Senators of the Great Council for which reason the place of the Talmud otherwise very difficult where the Greek Translation is ascribed only to five may easily be reconciled with the common opinion of 72. by the same Authority it is made authentick to all the Jews especially the Hellenists as the Fathers of the Western Church in the Council of Trent have made their Translation Authentick for as the Ignorance of the Christians in the Greek caus'd Translations into the other Tongues and these Translations became Authentick to the Churches by their use in like manner the Jews Ignorance of the Hebrew Tongue did move the Jews of Alexandria to translate the Bible into Greek for their use which Translation was afterwards read in their Synagogues and Schools and because as very probable it was approved of by the Sanhedrim at Hierusalem upon whom at that time the whole Nation of the Jews had a dependance it hath acquired the Name of the Septuagint Yet I think there is no necessity to have recourse to the Senators of the great Synagogue that the number of the 72. Interpreters to whom that Translation is commonly ascribed may be the better made out but we are only to consider the Form of Speech familiar to the Jews by which they attribute every thing of moment to those 70. Senators that the things thereby may acquire the greater Authority For this reason they ascribe the Vowel Points Accents and many other things of the like nature to the Sanhedrim not so much from the reality of the thing as from that Form of Speech so that it is difficult to distinguish when they speak plain and when allegorically This way of speaking hath led many men and those Learned into various Errors when in reading the Jews Books they consider more what they write than the manner and causes of their so writing We may bring for Example what occur in the Rabbins about the Title of Holy Writ the Keris and Cetibs or various Readings entire defective redundant and six hundred of the like nature All these most of the Jews ascribe either to Moses in Mount Sinai or to the Synagogue or Senate assembled under Esdras all
that wherever the Apostles or Apostolic men speak to the People they make use of those Quotations which were divulg'd among the People Why the Apostles us'd the Greek Version And therefore it is not to be thought that the Apostles made use of the Greek Version in their Writings because they thought the Author thereof to be inspir'd with a Divine or Prophetic Spirit or because no other Scripture was read in the Synagogues but only the Greek Version as Vossius erroneously affirms but because it was vulgarly in use and by the Testimony of St. Jerom because when the Apostles spake to the People they made use of those Quotations which were most in use among the Gentiles Quite otherwise then as they us'd to speak to the people of their own Nation who understood the Hebrew Vess Resp ad Critic Sacra But says Vossius St. Luke must of necessity have told an untruth had Stephen express'd any other Sence then what he put down in his Sermon As if there were any necessity for him to tell an Untruth who repeats the substance of a Speech in the same words only with some little Alterations of no moment Nor does the Learned Gentleman seem to reach the sence of the Author of the Critica Sacra as if he thought that Stephen had not preached his last Sermon in the Greek or vulgar Syriac but in the Hebrew Language Were the People says Vossius ignorant of the Hebrew Language in the time of the Apostles did the the Evangelist lye What will remain entire in the Gospel if we admit such Fictious as these But he rather feigns Monsters of his own for himself to vanquish afterwards Stephen preach'd in Syriac not in Greek Stephen Preached in Syriac which was then familiar to the Hierosolymitan Jews but the Quotations which he cites he could not cite in any other Language then the Hebrew because the Hierosolymitan Jews read the Law of Moses in their Synagogues in the Hebrew not the Greek Language and if any other Interpretation were added it was done in the Syriac Speech which was the vulgar Language as Vossius here freely confesses not in the Greek which was only used in the Schools and Synagogues of the Hellenists But in this I confess St. Jerom is to be corrected Comment in c. 6. Isai where he says that Matthew and John took their Citations from the Hebrew of the Old Testament forgetful of that Rule which he sets down in his Hebrew Traditions upon Genesis that is St. Jerom taxed that the Apostles and Apostolick Persons made use of the Greek Exemplars for no other reason then because they were common among the Gentiles But as for the Hebrew Copies they were kept only in the Synagogues of the Jews among whom very few were to be found who understood them On the other side the Greek Language was familiar to most Nations But it is to be observed that the Apostles though they stook to the Greek Copies yet they did not altogether so totally depend upon them but that many times they took more notice of the sence then the words Micha 5.2 Wherefore S. Jerom expounding this place of Michah and thou Bethlehem Ephratah makes this observation Some observe that in all Quotations taken out of the Old Testament there is some mistake or other that either the Order or the words are chang'd and sometimes the very sence it self varies the Apostles or Evangelists not looking in the Books but trusting to their Memories that might sometime fail them These words indeed seem somewhat too harsh nor have I quoted them that Vossius should give any Credit to them And yet he can hardly forbear at the same time to beleive John Calvin who commenting upon the same place of Micha thus observes What necessity is there to wrest the words of the Prophet when it was not the purpose of the Evangelist to repeat the words of the Prophet but only to note the Text. In like manner S. Jerom speaking his own and not the Opinion of others concerning these Quotations which are cited out of the Old Testament into the New Com. in 7. cap. Isai in many Quotations Saith he which the Evangelists or Apostles have taken out of the Old Testament we are to take notice that they do not follow the order of the words but the sence But let us now return to our purpose The first words of the ninth Chapter of the same Prophesie are hardly to be understood in the Greek Version Isai 9.1 when the sence lyes open in St. Jeroms Version St. Jerom produceth both in two distinct Colums after this manner At first the Lard of Zebulon and the Land Naphtali were lightly afflicted This was St. Jeroms Translation The Greek Version runs thus Drink this first do it quickly O Region of Zebulon and Land of Naphtali I am apt to believe the word Drink was taken from some other place which changes the sence A little after in the same Chapter St. Jerom taxes the 70 Interpreters for that instead of these words His name shall be called wonderful Counseller the Mighty God the Father of the Age to come the Prince of Peace they affrighted at the Majesty of the Titles durst not adventure to say so much of a Child that he was to be call'd God but instead of these six Titles they have put that which is not in the Hebrew Again he convinces the Grecian Interpreters of a manifest mistake that not minding the spelling of the words they have put Death instead of the Word God sent Death into Jacob whereas it should be the Word as St. Jerom interpreted it who presently adds the Original of the mistake in these words In the Hebrew Language the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is written with three Consonants according to the propriety of the places where it is used if it be read Dabar it signifies a word or speech but if Deber it signifies Pestilence and Death Not far from the beginning of the 10th Chapter of the same Prophet upon these words wo to Assur Isai 10.5 St. Jerom accuses the Interpreters for not having accurately observed the Hebrew Again in the 28. verse of the same Chapter upon these words He is come to Ajath he shews at large how much they differ from the Hebrew and taxes them of Falshood for interpreting it Rama City of Saul for the City of Saul is called Gallna as it is in the Hebrew Moreover St. Jeroms Opinion concerning the Seventy Interpreters is quite different from that of Vossius who believes there is nothing but Greek in it and that it is hardly call'd a Language that had its Original in the Synagogue For thus he speaks in his sixth Book of Commentaries Instead of stranger that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Seventy have Translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in Hebrew Ger Therefore Georas is no Greek word but an Hebrew word declin'd after the Greek
truly Impudent and Audatious that will make Interpretations otherwise St. Jerom also calls those Interpreters Judaic Translators in like manner as he entitles Aquila Symmachus and Theodotio But we are to note that these two Versions which we call the fourth and fifth in Origens Hexaples are extant under the names of the fifth and sixth the Greek Interpretation of 70 being reckoned into the Number But here we only mention those which were taken from the Hebrew Original after the Greek Version of the Septuagint Concerning all these Translations and the Genius of the several Translators much more might be added but what remains may be easily drawn from their fragments which are extant and which the learned Drusius has caused to be made publick in Print In like manner the Scholiast may be consulted whose Annotations are printed both at Rome and at Paris together with the Greek Exemplar of the Septuagint according to the Vatian Manuscript But in the first place St. Jerow's Commentaries upon the sacred Scripture are to be scann'd where nothing more frequently occurs than the Names of Aquilas Symmachus and other Greek Interpreters whom he sometimes Corrects and sometimes Commends To these some there are who make an addition of other Versions and attribute them to Lucian Hesychius Origen and Apollinarius but all these excepting Apollinarius did no more then examin the Greek Exemplars of the Septuagint with the Ancient Manuscripts not being the Authors of any new Translations In which sence are to be explained the words of St. Jerome a most remarkable Testimony in this case Alexandria and Egypt in their Sâ—ptuâ—gints applaud Hesychius the Author L. 1. Apol. adv Ruffin Constantinople even as far as Alexandria approve the Copies of Justin Martyr the Provinces in the midst of these read the Palestine Manuscripts which Eusebius and Pamphilus published being Elaborately viewed by Origen and the whole World contends about this threefold Truth But Apollinarius out of all composed one Edition though unsuccessfully being rejected as well by the Jews as Christians wherefore St. Jerom gives this Judgment of him I pass by Apollinarius who with great zeal and diligence but not according to knowledge has endeavoured out of all the Translations to make several peices of Cloath into one Garment and to weave the Consequence of Scripture not according to the rule of Truth but according to his own Judgment But these things shall be made more manifest Id. ibid. when we come to explain the Disposition of Origens Hexaple which was known to very few as we shall prove by what follows St. Jerom makes a distinction of two Versions of the Septuagint especially in his Epistle to Sunias and Fretela whom he admonishes that there is another Edition of the Septuagint whiâ—h all the Grecian Commentators call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Common and another which was to be found in the Hexaples of Origen and which he testifies to have been faithfully translated into Latin by himself St. Jerom adds that there is this difference between the one and the other that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Vulgar was corrupted by the variety of Places and Times and the negligence of the Transcribers but that which was to be found in the Hexaples that was the Translation of the 70. which was preserved incorrupt and immaculate in the Books of the Learned Which words however are not to be understood as if that Greek Edition which the Exemplars of Origen present to our view were the pure Original of the 70 Interpreters free from mistake seeing that Origen himself tells us that he had corrected the Vulgar Exemplars with all the exactness he could which were most of them corrupt and depraved in his time Now who will be so hardy as to affirm that he reformed every particular Error that was in those Copies Rather it might happen that under pretence of Correction he might obtrude some Errors that were not there before upon the antient Exemplars like that same Critic who examined the Greek Edition which is extant in the Bibles Printed at Complutum or Alcana de Henares in Spain by the Greek Copies which were antient and of good repute but sometimes also by the Hebrew Originals Therefore as the Edition of Complutum is not therefore the more pure because it comes nearest the Hebrew Original but for that very reason rather discommended and rejected as corrupt so neither is that Edition of Origen which St Jerom magnifies because it is more agreable to the Hebrew Truth than the Vulgar Greek Edition to be therefore thought the more pure and without Fault because it is more agreeable with the Hebrew Exemplars than the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Common One. I confess indeed that Origen has made no alteration of set purpose in the Version of the Septuagint which he inserted into his Hexaples because he avows it of himself writing to Africanus where he says that he had no intention to frame any thing which might dâ—ffâ—r from the Scripture received in the Catholick Church But the reason of his Method which he has followed in correcting the antient Greek Exemplars plainly demonstrates that in them he has made some Innovations For thus he speaks in his Treatise upon Matthew What Incongruities there were in the Exemplars of the Old Testament we were able to reconcile by the assistance of God making use of the other Editions For those things which in the Septuagint seemed to be dubious by reason of the Discrepancy of Exemplars weighing and considering the other Editions we made to agree with the Rest Therefore Origen while he lent his healing hand to the Vulgar Exemplars of the Greek Edition of the Septuagint consulted Aquila Symmachus and other Authors nay and it is very probable the Hebrew Text it self too Now who can presume to affirm him to be so happy in his Emendations as never to swerve from the true Reading nay though he had so exactly examin'd altogether all the Editions as he says himself and all varieties that by comparing the Difference of Translations he might understand the Septuagint Concerning the Editions of Lucian and Hesychius Concerning the Emendations of Lucian and Hesychius who in like manner examined the Exemplars of the Vulgar Greek Edition with the antient Exemplars the same Judgment may be given of them For it is very probable they consulted the Versions of Aquila and others From whence arose that Diversity of the Greek Codixes which now appears in several Editions of the Greek Translation of the Septuagint All which we may reduce principally to three from whence all the rest were derived And these are the Editions of Complutum which is extant in the Royal Bibles or those Printed at Antwerp Anno 1515. Laâ—e Greek Editions 1518 in the Parisian Polyglots and the Bibles that are Printed under the Name of Vatablus The Alclin or Venetian Edition which was afterwards Printed at Strasburgh Basil Frankford the Order of the Books being somewhat changed And lastly
the Roman Printed from the Vatican Codex 1587. which was afterwards Printed a Second Time at Paris by the care of John Morinus 1628. with an antient Latin Version and is the same with the English transferr'd into their Polyglotton as being the most acurate of all The Edition of Complutum was the most full of Faults of any of the rest as being examined and mended not only by the Greek but by the Hebrew Codexes also some also attribute to Eusebius and Pamphilus a new Recognition or Emendation of the Greek Version of the Septuagint Eusebius'â— Edition but if there were any Edition of Eusebius it was little different from that of Origen For as St. Jerom reports Eusebius and Pamphilus divulged the Codex's Apâ—l adv Ruffin that were elaborately mended by Origen Eusebius also recites an Epistle of Constantine the Emperor to himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the Preparation of Books written by divine Inspiration As indeed at the end of certain Greek Exemplars the names of Pamphilus and Eusebius are to be found recorded in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pamphilus Eusebius corrected that is to say the Exemplars of Origen which were inserted into the Hexaples were afterwards transcribed by Pamphilus and Eusebius for the Churches of Palestine whence as St. Jerom relates they took the Name of the Palestine Manuscripts as those which were corrected by Hesychius were called Constantinopolitan The Palestins Constantinopolitan and Alexandrian Editioâ—â— and they that were revis'd by Lucian carryed the Name of Alexandrian And this Diversity of Editions appears in several Exemplars in our Age while some relate to those of Origen or the Palestinian others to the Alexandrian Now let us inquire what was the Order and Disposition of the Books in Origen's Hexaples which is variously controverted among the Learned Isaac Vossius promises that he will at one time or other demonstrate that Origen in putting his Haxaples together took another way then is vulgarly believ'd de Sept. Interpret l. 29. Wherefore in his answer to the late Critics he maintains that the Tetraples and Hexaples of Origen were not so call'd from the four or six Columns but that they were call'd Tetraples because they contain'd a fourfold Version Hexaples because they comprehended six Versions That the Author of the Critics errs as to the Octaples while he follows Epiphanius in his mistakes because Origen never wrote any Octables that the Hebrew Codex was never reckon'd into the Number of Versions Origens vast undertaking consider'd by reason that Origen calls the first Columns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Foundation of all Translations Vossius adds that in the Tetraples there were six Columns in the Pentateuch also seven as to which the Samaritan Exemplar might be added Printed in the Original Hebrew Letters as they are call'd by Eusebius and Africanus But because that was only done in the Pentateuch therefore the Tetraples were said to contain only six Columns by the same reason as in the Hexaples tho' in the Psal a seventh Version is also added and yet the Title of Hexaples remains because that seventy Version is wanting in other Books Thus far Vossius who nevertheless cites no other Authors but himself to shew what that new way was which he promis'd to demonstrate yet that we may give the greater credit to his words he adds Since there are no exemplar remaining or at least none hitherto to be found of Hexaples or Tetraples to contend about these things too profusely would but shew the Vanity of a person too lavishly squandring away his leisure After this manner Vossius acquits himself of his prâ—mises to display a new and unheard of Disposal of Origens Hexaples But since he never saw any Exemplars of them it will not be amiss to consult those ancient Fathers of the Church and first of all Epiphanius who describe them as Eye witnesses Dionysius Petavius a most learned Jesuit and no less vers'd in the Greek and Hebrew Codex's then Vossius asserts that no person ever more accurately deliver'd what were the Tetraples Hexaples and Octaples of Origen than Epiphanius And the same Petavius admires that they most who took what they had out of Epiphanius should be deceiv'd in a place so plain and open to the understanding and first he taxes Marianus Victorinus in his Scholiast upon the Second Book of the Apology against Ruffinus where he reproves Erasmus as he says upon the Authority of Epiphanius but very erroneously The Order therefore of the several Editions is here set down in this same Scheme out of Epiphanius himself TETRAPLES Aquila Symmackus Sepâ—uâ—gint Theodotion HEXAPLE'S Hebrew in Hebrew Letters Greek in Greek Letters Aquila Symmachus Septuagint Theodotion OCTAPLE'S Hebrew in Hebrew Letters Hebrew in Greek Letters Aquila Symmachus Septuagint Theodotion Fifth Edition Sixth Edition But saith Vossius the Tetraples and Hexaples were not so call'd from the four or six Columns but from the four fold Version because they comprehended six Translations wherein the learned Gentleman is grosly mistaken For the name of Tetraples Hexaples and Octaples was deriv'd from the number of the Editions And every Edition took up one Column or Page according to the ancient Custom of Writing out their Volumes as the words of Ruffinus plainly evince It was the Intention of Origen to shew us what was the manner of reading the Scriptures among the Jews Ruffin invect and therefore he plac'd every one of the Editions in their proper Columns or Pages The same therefore was the method of Pages and Editions in Origens Hexaples Nor are those Arguments of any moment which Vossius deduces from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Title Origen gives to his first Columns that is to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being the foundation of all Versions I would fain know what else can be thence inferr'd but that Origen had a mind to distinguish by that name the Hebrew Context from the Versions that were made from it as being the ground of all the Translations In which sence St. Jerom calls the same Context the Hebrew Truth Does it less from thence appear that the Context written in the Hexaples in Hebrew and Greek Characters took up two Columns from which equally as from the Versions each of which was written in it's distinct Pages the name of Hexaple was deriv'd Moreover it is a Fiction of the same Vossius which he fains concerning the Samaritan Codex written in the Original Hebrew Letters which was added to the Pentateuch For that was unknown to the ancient Fathers of the Church Epiphanius Jerom Ruffinus as also to Eusebius and Africanus whom he endeavours to draw to his party Neither will ever Vossius be able to demonstrate by certain Reasons what he so confidently asserts touching the Samaritan Codex which was in Origen's hands and vainly he produces for Witnesses Eusebius Africanus Syncellus nay even Origen himself who never so much as dream't in
though St Jerom sometimes gives a reason of those Notes somewhat different Origen had added also other marks to this Work in the fashion of a small Label concerning the use of which the Criticks of our Age do not agree and which has been hitherto revealed but by a few we are to understand that Greek Edition of the Septuagint with all those illustrating and killing Notes in the Hexaples of Origen was found together with the Translations of Aquila Symmachus and the other Interpreters as the words of Rufâ—inus seem to prove Oâ—igen's Intention was to shew us what manner of Reading the Scriptures was observed among the Jews and wrote the several Editions of them every one in his proper Columes and whatever was added or taken away in any of them he noted with certain marks at the beginning of the Verses and in that which was another mans and not his own work be affixed his own marks only that we might understand what was wanting or superfluous not in respect of our selves but of the Jews that disputed against us Moreover the same Origen illustrated that vast work of his Hexaples with Scholiasts of several sorts which he placed in the Margent of the Book that he might give some Light to that Edition of the Septuagint which appeared in the midst between all the rest For first you might easily apprehend what was the distinction between the Antient or Vulgar Edition of the 70 and his own new Edition by the benefit of this Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which stands for 70 in Greek that Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoting the common Lection Then in the same Scholiasts the Interpretations of Aquila Symmachus and Theodosion were every one demonstrated by their proper Letter A' denoted Aquila Σ ' Symmachus and Θ Theodotion The fifth Edition was marked with E ' and the sixth with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He also set Notes in the Margent of his Book for the verbatim exposition of the words of sacred Scripture which are Printed in his works under the Title of Scholiasts And more then this if we will believe Vossius it is not improbable but that Origen marked in his Hexaples the various reading of the Samaritan Codex If any one will rather choose to believe that Origen did not insert the Samaritan Exemplar into his Hexaples and Tetraples but only marked the various Readings I will not much dispute the Business Thus Vossius fickle in his Judgment sometimes avers sometimes denies and whereas before he had so confidently asserted that the Exemplar of the Samaritan Pentateuch was extant in the Hexaples written in the Samaritan Characters now in a doubt he dares not be positive in a thing wherein he has so little of certainty to make out But as it is no way probable that the Samaritan Exemplar which was the same with the Judaick was extant in the Hexaples so it is very likely that Origen might transfer into his Scholiast the different reading of the Samaritan from the Judaic which he did not take out of the Samaritan Exemplar written in those Original Hebrew Letters but from the Greek Version of the Samaritan Pentateuch corrected by the Samaritans themselves This is the Oeconomie and Disposition of the Hexaples of Origen which Persons the most learned could not comprehend while they do not mind that the Greek Interpretations of Aquila Symmachus and Theodosion were twice set down in one and the same work that is entire in the work it self and part in the Scholiasts in the Margent but Origen who was desirous to be beneficial to all Persons reduced into a Compendium that vast Pile of the Hexaples by the help of Notes and Scholiasts to the end that they who could not buy the Hexaples entire might Transcribe at least the substance of the Text out of the Hexaples themselves and by the same art he published the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or common Edition of the Septuagint together with the new Edition which because he thought more corrected he inserted whole into his Hexaples adding in the Margent of the common and the various Sections under the mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore some are grosly mistaken who not understanding this disposition of the Hexaples undertake to maintain that there is in them a double Edition of the 70 Interpreters as well the vulgar as that corrected and pure one of which Origen and St. Jerom so often make mention placed in two distinct Pages and for that reason that the Hexaples did not derive their name from the distinct Columns but the several Versions but these things are apparently untrue and proceed only from the Ignorance of the order of the Hexaples to the Margent of which the ancient reading of the 70 was transferred and thus both Editions of the Septuagint appeared in the Hexaples now because few could purchase those vast volums that had emptied St. Jerom's Pocket most persons transcribed that interlin'd Edition mark'd by Origen with Asterisks and Daggers and other notes of Distinction from whence arose the greatest confusion in the World in the Greek Exemplars and from that time the ancient Interpretation of the 70 was no longer read in the Churches but the interlin'd one of Origen which or another like to it was afterwards transmitted to the Eastern Church by the Care of St. Jerome CHAP. XIX Of the Antient Versions of the Latin Church THe most contentions in disputes concerning the Bible which have disturbed the Church for these many years have been hammered in the Shops of certain Criticks and Gramarians who being bred in the Schools there is nothing which they do not call to the bar of Controversie presuming to prefer their own wit before the Authority of the Church and as if their Critick Art could by no means brook the Ecclesiastical decrees they presently oppose them with all their might and main but questionless without a cause for that the Church does by no means disallow of such Critical Observations as are every day made upon the Scripture by Persons conspicuous for their Poetry and Learning nor if any one more strictly enquire into the reason of the Biblick Context then another does she reject their Labours so they do not detract from the Ancient Editions And therefore it is lawful for the Protestant Divines in imitation of the Fathers to have recourse to the Hebrew Originals and to make new Translations from them so that they learn from the same Fathers That the Sacred Scripture is the proper possession of the Catholick Church and that they have the same sentiments concerning the Church and her Books which one of their own belief wrote in these words against those who neglect the ancient Versions and long allowed by the practise of the Church Let the Authority of our Mother the Church be preserv'd entire to it self let the Fathers enjoy the honour due to them to whose venerable gray Hairs if any one refuse to rise and contradict their decrees let them not be
his Brains a work for a more accurate Version though his second attempt was so far from being embraced by the more wise of his followers that Sebastian Munster was not affraid to give his Master the Title of a very Fable Translatour Munst praef on the Bible and Notes on the 2d Chap. of Jonah and no great Conjurer in the Hebrew This made Bucer maintain that Luthers Translation was faulty and Melchior Zanchius write a whole Book of the Authors Errata Hence it was that the Zinglians confided in themselves and turned the Hebrew Bible into the German that sighting Luthers poor endeavours they cast themselves upon one Leo Judas though these proceedings were not well taken by the above mentioned Translator Hence it was that the Low-Country Protestants mighty Adorers of this High-German Translation together with those of Suecia Finland Denmark Ireland and the rest of the Northern People who had formerly stuck close to Luthers Errors openly declare their readinss for a new Translation of the Bible being that That of Luthers was done all in a hurry and that as John Leusden Hebrew Professor in the University of Vtretcht testifies Luthers Works lay under a great many gross mistakes whereof some indeed might inveagle themselves in but that others without dispute arose the sluggishness of the Author slumbring over the Low-Dutch Translation And yet as Mr. Luesden tells us the Anabaptisis stood up Tooth and Nail for this Lutheran Translation resenting it very highly that Johannis Vrtenovis should take upon him to Correct Martin Luther upon the New Testament Though the Protestants of Low-Germany in the Synod of Dort as they call it rejected Luthers Translation which with all kindness they had formerly caressed looking upon it as spurious and degenerate an off spring nothing related to the Mother Hebrew wherefore they were delivered of a Translation of their own and Christned themselves the Revisors and Interpreters of Dort Now 't is our Province to enquire what order and method Martin Luther observ'd in his farewel Translation of the Scriptures Since he publickly asserts that the Hebrew is void and ineffectual that the Jews are not men to be believed and that St. Jerom himself in Translating the Scriptures was not inspired with Christian wisdom jumping into Ruffinus his opinion who gave out that the above named Holy Father was a Jew in heart For he wonders that any Christian will concern himself with the ridiculous Comentaries of the Jews The Jewish trifles saith the same Luther argue their Authors to know little or nothing of Holy-Writ and yet forsooth these are the Idols of our Modern and Famous Divines Divines most dexterous in the Hebrew Tongue and yet the most apt to hunt after such like whimsies He hath likewise a touch upon those Rabbys whose Talent is most commonly employed and laid out in Grammatical affaires decrying them thus That they may know perhaps the Nominal and bare signification but as for the real and intrinsic that they are ignorant of it and that therefore nothing of soundness and solidity may be expected from them Hence it is that he rejects the Hebrew Translators and their adherents as a pack of Fools Ideots who would pretend to shelter the Jewish Translations within the roof of the Scriptures And he thought it much better that the more obscure places of Scripture should be expounded by the Analogy or Rule of Christian Faith than by any Rabinical Books by reason the once lost Hebrew is impossible to be retrieved and that the true signification of a great many words in that Language is yet unknown even by the Jews themselves as well as by the Christians The use and knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue saith Martin Luther is so much lost and estranged that it can never be recovered neither do the words only but also the very Phrases and Construction lye under a most doubtful and various obscurity Hence it comes to pass that we know not the force Figures and Emphasis of a great many words and sentences which if any Christian may ever sift out so as to know their meaning he must necessarily be one of those men who with the help of the New Testament hath acquired to himself the full knowledge of the Scriptures That several particulars in this Method of Luthers may be hooted at is past dispute more especially those objections which he offer'd against the Translators of his Time in that they depended too much upon Rabbinical Books And yet the true reason why he pretended to calumniate these men was because they had spoke against the impropriety of his Translation Luther I surmize was in the fault when he stood dissatisfied not only with the Books of the modern Jews but also with St Jerom and the ancient Interpreters whom when he had strangely disrespected he betook himself as though all the world were Fools but his worship to a certain imaginary rule of Faith upon the faith of his own Brain Moreover being no great Critic in Grammer he was found guilty and condemned of several misinterpretations so that truckling under Prejudice and Opinion he giveth us for these words in the 4th Chapter of Genesis Possedi hominem per dominum I have gotten a man from the Lord. Possedi hominem Dominum I have gotten the man Lord. Certainly Luther was no stranger to the Cabalistical Doctor 's Opinion who out of this place would gladly raise up a Messia Besides Luther in the first Edition of his Translation had rendred these very same words thus acquisivi hominem Domini I have got the man of the Lord which Interpretation was much more disconsonant to the Hebrew Text than the other For truly it was not possible that such a Novice in the Hebrew should not sometimes lye under most palpable mistakes Wherefore his own Disciples were not affraid to revise and correct their Masters Translation a Translation I confess which they allowed some elbow room within the Bible and descended so far as to write their own corrections in a different Character or to imprison them within two stroaks which you may see in the Vinariensian Bible where Luther's Translation and the abovesaid Animadversions are exposed to the view of the World yet how much men of his own principles esteemed it we may easily conjecture since the Corrections added to it procured it the general applause of the Lutherians as the most accurate Edition Paulus Eberus who calleth himself Pastor of the Church at Wittenberg used the Protestants in the same manner as Isidorus Clarius did the Catholicks This man corrected the vulgar Latin and added thereunto Luthers German Translation declaring that in as much as was possible for him he followed the ancient Latin Translator whom notwithstanding you may afterwards find very much ashamed of his Animadversions having so low thoughts of his endeavours that he desired his Bible might not be republished because that being distracted by other business when he compos'd it he had run into some mistakes
was nothing formless and darkness covered the abyss and that the Spirit of God hover'd over the waters God said let there be Light doing it word by word out of the Latin Translation wherefore Theodore Beza mightily complained of it as likewise of the Latin and inveighs bitterly against the Divines of Basil that they should suffer Castalio's French and Latin Bible to be published at that place condemning both those Versions as prophane and the Author himself as no great Proficient in the Hebrew which Beza tells you he Learned from the most Expert Hebricians tho he himself had no skill in the Language And yet Castalio was not so meer a Child in the Hebrew as not to outstrip the Geneva Translators which he did in several places hundreds whereof I omit tho I cannot pass by the Hebrew word Tannanim in the beginning of Gen. render'd by the Latin cete grandia and by those of Geneva Grandes baleines which this Gentleman translated very well and most significantly grands poissonnars The Spanish Translation Here I had almost forgot the Bible Translated into Spanish by Cassiodorus de Reyna and Cyprianus Valerius Reformadoes The one of these men telleth you in his Preface that he followed Pagninus and the Jews The other Gentleman sheweth Himself not so much a Translator as an Animadverter upon Cassiodorus his Endeavours To speak plainly neither of these pretending Translators understood the Hebrew That there was a Translation of the Bible done in Italian by the Protestants may be probable The Italian Translation since Robertus Olivetanus speaketh of two Bibles in Italian whereof he was an Eye-witness That the Author of the one was Antonius Brucciolus we have before observed tho the Author of the other Translation is not yet known CHAP. XXVII Of the Polyglott Bibles BIBLES have the appellation of Polyglott from the several Tongues wherein they are penned Now the Jews of Constantinople are said to have published two Copies of Moses his Law in serveral Languages the first whereof gives you the Hebrew Text the Chaldee paraphrasely Onkelosius the Targum or Arabic Paraphrase by R. Saadius Sirnamed Gaon or the excellent and the Persian Version by Tausus The other presents you with not only the Hebrew Texts and Chaldee Paraphrase but a Translation in the vulgar Greek and another in Spanish and both of them writ in Hebrew Characters with the Rabbinical points which supply the places of so many Vowels And some points may be found both in R. Saadias and Tausus his Persic Translation though it may be worth our while to observe that the Jews who pointed R. Saadias his Translation did therein have a greater regard to the vulgar Arabic Translation than the true and Grammatical which may be seen by the Alcoran and made apparent from these first words in Genesis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Compare these with R. Saadias his Copy which in the Bible printed in England is Grammatically pointed though you may perchance find it in a new and different Equipage in the Bible published at Paris and you may easily see the difference of the Judaical method of pointing from the true and Grammatical And I will give you a small Specimen of the Vulgar Greek and Spanish Translations because you cannot meet their true Copies in any Europaean Libraries drawing my example from the 6 Version of the 1 Chap. of Deuteron placing the Hebrew as an unprejudiced impartial Arbitrator between the Spanish on the on side and the vulgar Greek on the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first Polyglott was published by Fran. Ximeniuâ— of Sineros Cardinal and Archbishop of Toledo and was vulgarly called the Complutensian Bible Here you may take a prospect of the Hebrew Text the septuagint and a Latin Translation supposed to be St. Jeroms together with a Chaldee Paraphrase upon the Pentateuch Now the reason of this Illustrious Cardinals attempt is laid down in his Preface to Pope Leo the 10th since that every Language hath its proverbial proprieties whose full energie may not be expressed by the most compleat Interpretation which more especially happens in the Hebrew Tongue it must likewise come to pass that where there is so great variety of Latin Books and so many false readings there must then an appeal be made to the Original Language as St. Jerom St. Austin and other Ecclesiastical Writers are pleased to tell us so that the right reading of the Books of the Old Testament is to be tryed by the Touchstone of the Hebrew-truth and those of the New-Testament by the Greek Copies and yet in another of his Prefaces to the Reader he seems to deny the Hebrew verity to recriminate the Jewish Books an useful method whereby he might with lesser difficulty bring in vogue the Old Translations of the Church for he declares that when he had placed St. Jeroms Latin Translation between the Greek and Hebrew Tongues he fancied he beheld our Saviour or the Catholick Church between two Thieves Certainly a most unworthy similitude and not fit to come out of the Lips of so eminent a Cardinal touching the Chaldee Paraphrase He saith he only published that part which related to the Books of Moses and as for the remainder upon the rest of the Old Testament he looked upon it as corrupt and unworthy to be bound up with the Holy Scripture This is the method observed in the Complutensian Bible and the Author Cardinal Ximenius is to be commended that he did not compose a New Translation different from St. Jeroms and yet would certainly have been more applauded if he had taken notice of the places where the Translatour follows St. Jerom a little too hard and deviates from the Hebrew Text. For truly Criticks go about to remark that St. Jerom's Translation as we have it now is not all of a make but hath some little mixture of the Ancient or Italian Herein I quote the most Learned Cardinal that he rectified the faulty Latin Edition which yet he had the happiness to perform in general namely where he endeavoured to correct the Latin Translator without the help of Latin Books neither came he well off in reforming the Greek Copies with the Hebrew though he solemly declares he had nothing to do with the Vulgar surreptitious Copies but the most ancient and least faulty He published a Book of the words in the New Testament and professes that his sole aim herein was to present the Reader with the bare Letters only without spirit or tone He saith 't was an easie case to mannage That the ancient Greeks never troubled their heads with such like punctillâ—'s Now why he did venture upon the Septuagint after the same method he giveth this reason namely that it was bare Translation and not Text as is the Greek Edition of the New Testament In fine Cardinal Ximenius superadded to these his abovementioned works an Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary which he did not take up upon trust at the Shops of the Rabby's
but had it at the best hand of the Ancient Interpreters Arias Montanus at the expences and by the Authority of Philip the 2d King of Spain republished the Complutensian Polyglot with no small augmentation which in process had the spacious Title of Kings Phillips Bible A Book which beside the Hebrew the Septuagint and St. Jerome's Latin Translation of the Complutensian Edition gives you a fair prospect of the Chaldee Paraphrase upon the remainder of those Books in the old Copy which Cardinal Ximenius gave to the Library at Complutensian together with the Syriac Translation of the New Testament done into Latin Neither would Arias Montanus influenced by Ximenius his example suffer his Book to contract acquaintance with any Translation save that of St. Jerome's and yet that a Latin Translation might not be wanting to render the Hebrew Text verbatim he inserted in the end of his Book San. Pagninus his Latin Translation with his own animadversions whereby the Hebrew might be better understood This grand elaborate and princely undertaking tho it was approved of by the Divines of Spain Lovaenium and other learned and pious Men nay even by the Universal Bishop himself Gregory the 13th yet it groaned under the common fate of all Books was carp'd at and pinched by the men of Leeth These were the detracting sort of People who objected that Arias Montanus had put in Execution a most bold rash and nefarious attempt in daring to publish that corrupt and monstrous Paraphrase which Ximenius had ordered to be laid up in the Colledge Library at Complutensia And there were some Jews who thinking that the Chaldee Paraphrase was a great Pillar to keep up the superstitions of their Religions wished all health and happiness to King Philip the 2d a Defender as they supposed of their Rites and Ceremonies In the mean time one Franciscus Lucus of Bruges a great Divine and a man of vast Learning took up the Cudgels ägainst these impertinent Detractors and made an Apology for the Chaldee Paraphrase Besides Arias Montanus declares that Cardinal Ximenius himself had thoughts of publishing the same Chaldee Paraphrase and that he had thoughts of adding a Latin Translation to it only putting out the Fables Doubtless that princely Work deserves to be had in estimation with all Divines though it be defective in some particulars as carrying along with it all those deformities which we took notice of before in the Conplutensian Bible For the Greek and Latin Copies are the same that were published by Cardinal Ximenius Arias Montanus did not so much reform San. Pagninus his Latin Version as he did corrupt and spoil it for pressing the Hebrew which too closely he frequently commits toto casu and making a great noise about a little Sense does often miss of the proper import of the words Besides Arias caused a better method and more Copious Index to be published as containing more Lexicons and Grammars than that of the Complutensian Bible though many unnecessary things might be left out which make nothing for his purpose The liberal expences of Cardinal Ximenius and Phillip the Second were far exceeded by an Eminent Person of this Age Michael Le Jay of Paris who undertaking to Publish the Polyglot Bible at his own charge spent his whole Patrimony in Printing of it before he had finish'd so great and wonderful a work First then they took care to have all that was already extant in the King's Bible reprinted in a fairer Character and to these he joyn'd the Samaritan Books viz. the Hebrew Samaritan Pentateuch with the Samaritan Translation and the Syriack and Arabick Versions of the Old Testament distinguished by points with their Latin Interpretation a thing scarce credible ever to have been attempted In this business he was assisted by a very Learned man Gabriel of Sion that came from Mount Libanus in the Holy-Land and in some few Volumns by Abraham an Ecchellensian one of the same Nation But that part which contains the observations of several worthy men upon the various Editions of the Bible is wanting in this work and through the negligence of those that were intrusted with it it happen'd that the Copies of the Greek Translation by the Seventy Interpreters and the Latin one by St. Jerom were both composed anew the very same with those in the Kings Bible the Greek Edition after the Vatican Pattern though corrected and amended was omitted and the Copies of the common Edition were laid aside though they had been by Commissions from the Popes strictly examined after the most ancient and best approved Books and that by the Hands of several Excellent Persons and judicious Criticks However I pass by those faults which occasioned by the Transcribers oversight in the Syriack and Arabick Books do yet in great part remain Besides that the Latin Expositors not perfectly understanding the Syriack and Arabick words have often sailed in expressing the sence Lastly to this vast Work are perfixed certain Prefaces which recommend it's usefulness But in this the brave Mr. Le Jay proves his own Enemy for depending totally upon such men as were partly byass'd in their Opinions by prejudice especially John Morin otherwise a man of competent Learning he extolls the Jewish Books and sticks not to prefer them before the ancient Translations of the Church but what seems scarce 0 credible he possitively asserts that it ought to be granted as a certain and undoubted truth that that common Edition which passes about in the vulgar Tongue of the Catholick Church is the true and genuine Original of Holy Scripture But the Fathers themselves at the Council of Trent durst not pass any such decree concerning the Latin Books To no purpose has that Liberal Gentleman drained his Purse in Publishing such voluminous peices of the Polyglot Bible if it appear that the Latin comprehends the proper and Primitive Scripture and that we must have recourse to him as the true Fountain In like manner vindicating the interpretation of the Seventy Elders he draws an Argument solid enough in his Judgment from a Mahometan Author who as to matter of Chronology rejected the Hebrew Books of the Jews and Samaritans and adhered to the Greek Interpreters from whence Mr. Le Jay concludes that the Seventy Interpreters were in the highest esteem not only amongst the Christians but Mahometans too Indeed 't is very probable that Mr. Le Jay to credit the antiquity of the Arabick Versions which he himself first published would not stick to say that by the help thereof St. Jerom had restored the seven or eight hundred Verses of Job which were lacking in the old Translation and this his assertion he confirms by St. Jerom's own Testimony who before his Translation of the Book of Job had premised that in it were missing about seven or eight hundred Verses and that in compiling it he had not followed any of the ancient Translators but had collected sometimes the words sometimes the sence and often both at once out
of the Hebrew Arabick and sometimes Syriack Languages But that St. Jerom hereby mentioning the Arabick Tongue did not mean the Arabick Version is a thing so well known that it needs no proof these words of the Learned Father signify no more than that the Book of Job was difficult to be understood since the Author thereof had notonly used Hebrew words but also Syriack and Arabick For the better understanding of which he avers that with a great sum he ransom'd a certain Master called Lydaeus who was thought to be of great repute amongst the Hebrecians Scarce had the Parisian Bibles got abroad when in England the famous Walton and other divers persons begun to think of committing these same Bibles to the Press again to be of less bulk and not so large a Letter that this New Edition of the Polyglots might be readier and more convenient for the use of such as studied the holy Scriptures This matter succeeded as happily as was expected so that these Polyglot Bibles appeared in publick in the year 1657 and are vulgarly called the English Bibles containing six Volums They are indeed much inferiour to the Parisian Heptaglots in the largeness and goodness of the Paper as also the neatness of the Character But they have this advantage chiefly that every context and version may be discerned by the Reader in one single glance as it were and with little trouble compared one with another which cannot be done in reading the Parisian Polyglot without turning over two vast huge Volumns together Again they are to be preferred before that of Paris in that they contain truer Copies of the Greek Versions of the Septuagint and the Latin one by St. Jerom the Greek being first borrowed from a Vatican Book at Rome was afterwards Printed at Paris the Latin purged from innumerable Errours by the Study and Authority of Pope Sixtus the Fifth and Clement the Eight Besides all this you have the Arabick and Syriack Translations of Ester Judith Tobias and some other few Books which are not extant in the Parisian Bible either in Arabick or Syriack The English Edition has likewise a threefold Paraphrase one called the Hierosolymitan another that of Pscado Jonathan both which are writ in mixt Chaldee and a third Tausus his Persian Paraphrase It has also the four Gospels in the Persian and a Egyptian Psalter all which the Parisian Polyglots want In the mean time Monsieur Le Jay having consumed his Estate in publishing the Paris Bibles complains much of his sad Fortune and inveighs against the English men as Plagiaries who had taken his Work out of his hands and had published nothing except some few things of very little importance but what he had set forth before Truly the Gentleman ought to be pitied who had lavishly wasted all his substance in hopes of future gain But the English men in publishing such Polyglots as are more convenient and better suited to all necessities do really deserve Commendation and had deserved it much more if they had set out the Versions of the Oriental Nations especially the Arabic which lay dorment in their Libraries and are of better note than those which were published in the Parisian Bibles For it had been much better to have set forth the Copies of the Arabic Pentateuch with the Obelisks Asterisks and others of Origen his Notes which are reserved in the Library at Oxon than to have composed anew that Old patched Paraphrase of R. Saadias which was extant before in the Parisian Polyglots But what seems more strange is that the infinite number of faults which the Parisian Edition is stuff'd with especially in the Syriac and Arabic Versions as also in their Latin Interpretations should yet be found in the English one nor taken notice in the critical Animadversions made upon the last Toâ—e Much more might be objected against the English Edition which I omit since nothing can be absolutely compleat and perfect But the most notable thing in it is the Animadversions prefix'd to the fore-front of the Book though this Preamble hath it's failings too for it seems to be composed by several Authors who differing in Opinion about the same matter become contrary Parties this is the cause why Walton in whose name this Book first appeared in publick sometimes talks a little incoherently ANIMADVERSIONS Upon a small TREATISE OF Dr. Isaac Vossius's Concerning the ORACLES OF THE SYBILLS AND His Answer to the Objections in a late Treatise Entitl'd CRITICA SACRA LONDON Printed in the Year MDCLXXXIV ANIMADVERIONS UPON A Small Treatise Concerning the ORACLES of the SYBILLS By ISAAC VOSSIUS D.D. And an Answer to the Objections against the late CRITICA SACRA THE Author of the Critica Sacra upon the Old Testament had bespoken Moderation in Isaac Vossius whom he look'd upon as a Person carried away with too great an affectation of the Greek Version But the Learned Gentleman who well understood that Christ in the Apocalyps had spu'd the Lukewarm out of his mouth and that God loves nothing that halts between two Mediums In Resp ad obj nup. Critic fell more obstinately to work when he set himself to write his small Treatise concering the Oracles of the Sybils wherein he seems to have argued to that one thing alone the advancement of the Greek Interpreters by applauding according to his common Custom the Exemplars of the Jews For he returns his answer to Simon in such a manner as if he had address'd himself in his work with a Mind prepossess'd by the Rabbins after the Example of St. Jerom who was the first of the Christians who fram'd a Rabbinic Version and â—ncouraged others to dare the same Vossius makes large Protestations that he does not follow the Rabbins and that he acquiesces in that Version which Christ himself approv'd and admonishes Simon to forbear from any new Translation of the Sacred Scripture in regard a purer and more genuine Version cannot be made then that which was recommended to us by Christ and his Apostles And so far indeed Vossius does well in attributing very much to the Greek Translators though he would have done much better had he not affirmed them to be altogether free from all manner of Error and that they were not to be swerv'd from in matters of smallest moment as they who were to be lookt upon as Prophets rather then Interpreters I also extol the diligence of that worthy Person in vindicating the Translation of the Seventy Interpreters from the calumnies of most slanderous persons and for correcting their Manuscripts But when he comes to discourse of the Jews and their Books the Learned Gentleman discovers a world of ignorance in those things and frequently endeavours to impose falshood for truth All which shall be made apparent by Examples To which purpose I shall select some things out of that famous Persons Treatise concerning the Oracles of the Sybills and his answer to the Objections of the Critica Sacra from whence it
Vossius himself in the midst of his Prophetick Chiurme forging new Prophesies like that same famous Imposter William Postellus who writes that the Chaldaeans had the true Doctrine reveal'd to them under the first Monarchy and that it was continually renew'd like the sacred Doctrine by the ten Sybils that the world might be inexcusable before the Spirit of God and that Christ the King both of the Sacred and the Sibelline Doctrines might be known to be the Deity that was to be ador'd by the whole World Such Stories as these Vossius produces concerning the Oracles of the Sybills But Postellus yet more quicksighted asserts this Prophetical Doctrine to have had its Original from a Woman who was Princess of all the East and next of kin to Noah Who would believe that Isaac Vossius who spares for no virulent expressions against the Jews and their Talmud should introduce a Talmudic Doctor among the Prophets if it be so I wonder he should be in such a fury against a Person Learned in the Hebrew who expounded the Gospel out of the Talmud Lightfoot He seems to me saies Vossius to commit a less Sin who explains the Gospel out of the Alcoran then by the Talmud But of these things enough and too much Let us now return to the Apocryphal Books I call the Apocriphal Books when we discourse of Byblick concerns those which neither the Church nor the Synagogue has received as Canonical Hence it came to pass that of old St. Jerom personating a Jew and lately Cajetane sentenc'd many Books among the Apocriphal before they were receiv'd for Divine and Prophetic by the decree of the Church In this sence St. Jerom affirms Hieron pâ—aef in Dan. that Daniel among the Hebrews had not the story of Susanna nor the Song of the three Children nor the fable of the Bell and the Dragon Which we saith he because they are dispierced all over the World preferring the truth and withal depressing their Authority have added however least we might seem to have cut of a great part of the Volume In like manner after he had produc'd the Books of Scripture which were held Canonical among the Jews he adds Whatever we meet with besides these is to be accounted Apocrâ—phal Hieron pâ—aef in lio Reg. That is to say the Wisdom of Solomon the Book of Jesus the Son of Syrach Judith Tobit and the Preacher induc'd by this reason Africanus Africanus also believes the Story of Susanna to have been feign'd by a Greek Writer others feigned two Daniels one the Author of the Prophesie that goes under his name and the other the Writer of the Story of Susanna which in the ancient Editions of the Greek Exemplar was placed before the Prophesie of Daniel St. Jerom indeed was the first that transposed it at the end of the same Prophesie because it was not in the Jewish Exemplar which he translated And St. Jerom confirms his opinion concerning the History of Susanna by the Testimony of other Fathers I wonder saith he That certain peevish waspish persons are in wrath with me as if I had cut of part of the Book whereas Origen Eusebius Apollinarius and other Eclesiasticall Persons and Doctors of Greece confess those Visions not to be found among the Hebrews not that they ought to be answerable to Porphyrius for those things which afford no Authority of sacred Scripture Gregory Nazianzen Melito of Sardis and the Author of the Synopsis which goes about under the Name of Athanasius went farther and put the Book of Esther among the Apocryphal Books meerly because not understanding the Hebrew Tongue they found some pieces added to the Ancient History of Esther by a Greek Author for which reason they condemn'd the whole Work It happened saith Sextus Senensis that by reason of those fragments of Appendex's inserted here and there through the rashness of some Writers that Book though written in the Hebrew did not find reception among the Christians Nicholas de Lyra also Cajetan and some others denyed these Additions likewise to be Canonical induc'd as it is most probable by the same reasons These things have been discoursed more at large that it might appear to all what Books were reckon'd to be Apocriphal in the Judgment of the more Antient Fathers But Vossius abusing the word Apocryphal introduces suppositious and Adulterate Books instead of the Old Apocryphal and so imposes upon the simple and unwary For whereas he endeavours to make it out that the Books of the Sybills and others which he calls Fatidical were joyned with the Books of the Old Testament read in the Primitive Church and recommended by the Apostles it is the Fiction of one that has nothing to do but to sit and Romance in Divinity For there were no other Books read in the Primitive Church or added to the rest of the Books of the Old Testament in the Greek Exemplars of the Bible than those which are mentioned by the Fathers Though perhaps some of the Gentiles that they might press the Jews and the Gentiles more home have sometimes quoted the Books of the Sibylls and others of the same stamp which nevertheless no ingenious person will reckon among the Apocryphal Books of which we are now in discourse Vossius is very much griev'd that the Books of the Sibylls and other Sooth-sayer's Books after they were prohibited by publick Edict were made Apocryphal and forbid to be read by any Person when formerly they were openly and religiously made use of by the Jews like the rest of the Books of the Old Testament whence it came to pass that the Canonical Books were reduced to a more certain Number and the word Apocryphal was taken in an evil sense for spurious and of doubtful and suspected Credit In the mean time he never cites the Authour from whence he drew these witty conceits which are so like the Fables of the Jews so that I may presume to ask this Learned Person what the Factious Cardinal Hyppolito d'este demanded of Areosto Dove hatrovato tante cogloonare Where did he find out so many jugling Tricks But I agree with him in what he writes concerning the Apocriphal Books if by them he mean no other then those which passed from the Jews to the Christians with the rest of the Books of the Old Testament for that the greatest part of them are read in the Romish Church especially since the decree of the Council of Trent as Canonical for indeed it might be that those Books which were formerly rejected as Apocriphal because they were not approv'd by the Cannon of the Jews might have had Prophets for their Authors Nor is the Authority of Josephus contrary to this opinion who affirms that from the times of Artaxerxes there was no certain Succession of the Prophets and therefore that these Books which were reckon'd after that were not to be accounted Cononical Nor is it probable that the Function of the Prophets was altogether taken away
Divine Law of God could stand with those Words of Deutronomy Thou shalt neither add to it nor detract from it The Jew makes Answer That those Words were only spoken in reference to the multitude that they should not Innovate any thing of their own Heads or take upon 'em to be Self-wise but not in Relation to the Senators of the Great Sanhedrim for that it was not for one Moses only to engross the making of Laws which was a priviledge belonging to other Prophets Priests and Judges who were endu'd with the same Spirit of God This unless I mistake is the Genuine Sense of the Talmudic Doctrine which cannot be wrested to the Extirpation of the Words of the Sacred Context when the Dispute lyes about taking away a Word or a Letter Nay sometimes a Sentence in the Explication of the Context but not of changing or erasing Letters or Words out of the Sacred Original Morinus from whom Vossius has borrowed whatever he has in his Works that savours of Rabbinism after he had omitted no sort of Fiction to prove That the Sacred Exemplars were on-set purpose Corrupted by the Jews at length embraces the Opinion of St. Austin in these Words We willingly embrace the Opinion of St. Austin concerning the Books of the Jews by themselves deprav'd and mutilated of set purpose Lib. 1. Exercit 1. c. 6. From whom however he professes to disagree in this for that St. Austin thought it to be an Act not to be believ'd in regard it could not be that a Nation scatter'd far and near should all unanimously Conspire to Corrupt so many Copies and so far assunder dispers'd But Morinus more quick-sighted then St. Austin violently maintains the Fact not only to be beleiv'd among the Jews but also to be by them esteemed another Article of their Faith Now whether that were prov'd by Morinus by sufficient Argument is not our business to enquire It is enough to have shewn that Morinus upon whom Vossius depends in most things could not be induc'd to believe that the Jews corrupted the Text of Scripture on set-purpose tho' he were not ignorant of the Opinion of Talmudists in taking away a Letter out of the Law upon Occasion Now Vossius having left the Talmudists comes to the Greek Interpreters and makes it his chief business to assert that all the Hebrew which we have remaining we are beholding to the Seventy Interpreters for it that without them not so much as one word could be rightly expounded that no Versions made by the Jews or to the liking of the Jews are good which were not taken from the Seventy Interpreters that wherever you desert them you depart from the Truth Lastly That the Interpretation of the Scripture is to be fetched from those Jews who Translated the Scripture when the Hebrew Language flourish'd and was familiarly spoken and not by those Jews who are Enemies to the Christian Faith and who confesses themselves ignorant of their own Tongue Now John Morinus produces Arguments almost like to these to teize the modern Hebrew Exemplars and to establish the Authority of the antient Interpreters which in regard they are most solidly refuted by Ludovicus Capellus a Copious Testimony in reference to this subject and not undeservedly applauded by Vossius himself I had rather answer Vossius in the words of that most learned Author than my own First therefore says Capellus concerning Morinus and we concerning Vossius It is easie to sell smoke to the ignorant vulgar and to boast of gawdy Trappings to the people Then coming to the Seventy Interpreters Capel in Apol. advers Boot he says contrary to the sentiments of Vossius That the Hebrew Language was natural to them which was lost in the Captivity of Babylon after which they liv'd above 200 Years He adds That they from the near affinity between the Chaldee and Syro Chaldaic Languages which the Jews then made use of might by study labour and frequent reading of the Scripture attain to no mean knowledge of the Tongue and many things also necessary to the understanding of that Language and the Sacred Writings they might gather from the Traditions of their Ancestors But says Capellus that they saw all things understood all things never err'd or never were deceiv'd no Man will pretend to say but such a one as understands nothing of the Hebrew and never compar'd their Translation with the Hebrew Text even in those places wherein they read no otherwise then we do at this day where it is easie to see their frequent childish and shameful failings errors frequently from the Genuine signification of the words and phrases and the Intent and Scope of the Sacred Writings These and many other passages had Capellus inserted into his Sacred Criticism which Mâ—rinus took care to have expung'd because they did not relish his Palate But we took them out of Capellus's Apology against Bootius Now what Vossius can Answer to these things I do not apprehend whenas he himself knows that Capellus when he undertook his Criticks was not overmuch prejudic'd against the Rabbins Nay those Semi-Rabbins whom Vossius so often traduces have heavily complained of Vossius and his Book Let us once more hear the words of that most learned person and most acurately vers'd in these Matters wherein he gives a Judgment of the Versions which were made out of the Hebrew after the Seventy Interpreters plainly contrary to the Opinion of Vossius Id. cap. ibid. Let there be attributed says Capellus to every one of those ancient Versions their particular Praise and Honour by reason of their Antiquity and perpetual use in the Church nevertheless where they are manifestly vitious defective and mutilated let not their imperfection be preferred before the Original Truth and Authentick Text nor through a certain perverse wicked wrangling and contentious envy or rather damnable ill custome be advanced before the much better and more acurate Translations Therefore in the Opinion of Capellus there might be a better and more acurate Translation of the Sacred Text then that of the Seventy To these many other things of the same Nature might be added which I omit for fear of being troublesome Then again seeing that Capellus was not of that Sect of people whom the most Facetius Vossius calls In Epist ad Andr. Colv. Asses void of light and understanding clad with a little Professors Gown instead of a Shield carrying the Masoretic Bibles garnish'd with all their Points I would willingly believe that he will be brought to condescend without any great trouble to the Opinion of so excellent a person concerning the Version of the Seventy Interpreters Again Vossius stands very furiously upon it That all the Jews who preceded the time wherein Christ was upon the Earth acknowledged this Version only as lawful That till the time of Aquila no other was read in all the Synagogues of the Jews besides the Version of the Seventy Interpreters not only in Aegypt Asia
Learned Gentleman adds another Fiction that this manner of Writing that is in Greek Letters was in use among the Jews for almost a Thousand Years that is to say to the time of the Masorites who almost six Hundred Years before neglecting this double manner of Writing imitating the Arabians and Syrians introduc'd Points and Tittles which they made use of instead of Vowels But as to that 't is now eight Hundred Years ago that R. Saadias wrote certain little Treatises of Grammer whence it appears that before those times Point-Vowels were added to the Exemplars of the Bible To what end does he mention the Mazorites whom I do not deny to have been the Inventors of points when they themselves liv'd long before R Saadias But saies Vossius that points are a late Invention is manifest from hence for that there appears no Book no Monument of them that is more ancient than five Hundred Years By the same reason I might say that before six Hundred Years ago there were no Hebrew Exemplars of the Bible which are not to be found in our age which pretend to a higher Antiquity But I blush to spend more time in refuting these things which are so openly false F. Simon has produc'd Monuments much more Ancient wherein the Points are to be seen After this Vossius violently Assails the Jews and infers that they have adapted wrong and depraved Vowels to most words from the proper Names which we frequently meet with in the Gospels and other Writings of the Antient Jews That of necessity saith the Learned Gentleman the modern points were added sillily and injudiciously or that Christ and all the Apostles and Antient Jews were ignorant of the Names of the Prophets and their Fore-Fathers But the most excellent Vossius does not observe that those very Names are pronounc'd and written at this very day by the Jews of various Nations after a different manuâ—â— The Italians write 'em one way the Germans another the Spaniards another way The Spaniards come nearest the Ancient manner of Writing and Pronouncing because their pronunciation is more pure But the German Jews are farther off then all the rest from the true manner of Writing and Pronouncing which is manifest from the Books which they have severally written in the Itaiian Spanish and German Languages wherein the Hebrew words are written after a quite different manner and in other Letters But it is certain that they did not derive that variety of Writing from the various Lections of the Hebrew Exemplars But the fault of Pronunciation which arises from the vulgar Speech draws along with it the errours of Spelling and Writing Whence it comes to pass that most of the Hebrecians who learn Hebrew from Buxtorf's Hebrew Grammar pronounce the Hebrew words very ill and after the German manner All which has been observ'd in few words by Leo Modena who in favour of his own Nation prefers the Pronunciation of the Italians before all the rest Leo Mod. Hist de Rit Heb. p. c. 1. Nella Provincia di essa lingua Hebraea saith that great Master sono talmonte poi tra di loro differenti che a pena sono intesi Tedeschi da gli Italianie Levantini Nevi e chi piu chiaro e conforme alle regole della vera Grammatica favâ—llâ—che Italiani In the Province of the Hebrew Language they are so absolutely different from one another that the Dutch are hardly understood by the Italians and Easterly People Nor are there any who speak more clearly and conformably to the Rules of true Grammar then the Italians That this was the chance of all Languages we may learn from the Ancient Grammarians And this Argument has Erasmus most excellently handl'd in his Dialogue concerning the true Pronunciation of the Greek and Latin Tongues where he observes that Maximilian Caesar being congratulated by the Embassadors of several Nations all that heard them believ'd that not one Oration was pronounc'd according to the Latin Pronunciation but every one according to the vulgar Pronunciation of the Country The same Erasmus relates that the Oration of a French-man no bad Latin neither was pronounc'd so much after the French Mode that the standers by believ'd him rather to speak French then Latin To which Oration of the French a Court Doctor answer'd so much after the German manner that no German could have pronounced his own Mother Tongue more German like For he began thus Cesarea Mâ—ghest as pene caudet fidere foâ— horationem festram lipenter audifit instead of Cesarea Majestas bene gaydet videre vos Orationem vestram libenter audivit His Caesarean Majesty rejoyces much to see you and has gladly heard your Oration Not much unlike to this do the German Jews pronounce and write the Hebrew Language after the German manner and thence has arisen that strange difference in proper Names which is to be observ'd in the Versions of Paginius Munster and other Interpreters if they be compared with the Gospels and other Antient Writings of the Jews But now the Learned Gentleman contends that the Exposition of the Hebrew words becomes uncertain by reason of the defect of the Vowels and believes F. Simon to be of the same opinion who also believed that thence it happen'd that the Rabbins affirmed that the Hebrew Codex's had 7â— Faces True it is indeed that Simon does attribute in part the diversity of Interpreters of the Hebrew Context to the inconstancy of the Vowels sometimes added sometimes omitted But he explains after a different manner the 72 Faces which according to the opinion of the Jews the Hebrew Codex's seem to wear Nor is there any reason that Vossius should so frequently object that Proverb of the Jews which he seems not to have understood For one pure Sence of Scripture is no less approv'd by the Jews then by the most Learned Vossius But under the Name of 72 Faces are comprehended those Allegorical Senses which are as many as there are idle oscitant Rabbies to invent'em it is a common saying not only among the Jews of the Caraean Sect but among the Rabbinists who have any Learning or Judgment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Scripture does not go beyond the Literal Sense which the Learned Aben Ezra professes to be that which he always embraces scorning the Seventy Two Faces or Allegorical and Cabbalick Senses which most of the Jews superstitiously observe that inhabit the Eastern Counties Therefore to me they seem more silly than the Jews themselves who have collected sundry Monsters of Fables out of the Books of the Rabbins to bring an Odium upon those circumcis'd Doctors The Talmudic Books and the ancient Medrâ—schim or Allegorical Commentaries are full of those portentous Stories In this Sense the Rabbies say that Moses did not dye That while R. Simeon Ben Jochai liv'd and all the Reign of Ezekiah there was no Rain-bow because they were just men That when Jonathan began his Chaldee Paraphrase the Birds that flew over
his Head were burnt in a moment I pass by six hundred more of the same Stamp which the wiser Jews believe to have been spoken in an Allegorical Sense hither are all those Fables to be referr'd all those Fables which the Rabbins have invented concerning the LXXII Faces of Scripture Let Vossius therefore forbear to object against them that there can be no Truth where the Sense is so manifold After much wrangling in the same place the Learned Gentleman offer many things concerning the name of Prophet which are altogether from the purpose and of no use For as if he were asham'd to have numbered the Greek Interpreters among the Prophets he affirms them to be truly Prophets who rightly interpret the Scripture seing that Prophet is the same with Interpreter and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to interpret As if the present Dispute were concerning this Sort of Prophesie Vossius was derided by Simon for endeavouring to set a foot again his stale and rank Opinion of the Prophetship of the LXX Interpreters induced thereto by no other Arguments than out of a hatred to those whom they call Semi-Rabbies But whether those things tend which the most acute Gentleman more prolixly faigns to shew that not only among the Greeks but also among the Aegyptians the Interpreters and Fore-tellers of Dreams and future things were called Prophets I am not so Argus Ey'd as to perceive He also vehemently maintains that God conferr'd the gift of Prophesie upon the Worshippers of Idols But what is all this to the present purpose He calls the Greek Version divinely inspired and labours very hard to prove that the Authors thereof were inspir'd with the Holy Ghost and to make their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Inspiration out Simon therefore not impertinently objects against Vossius that sort of Prophesie was taken from the 70 Interpreters long ago even in the time of St. Jerom. Rather he imposes upon Simon when he calls him to an account as if he believed that Stephen or vulgar Syriac but in the Hebrew Language What will remain entire in the Church saies the Man Religious even to Superstition if we admit such Fictions as these But Vossius is so accustom'd to the framing of Fictions that he scrupled not to forge new in this place to refute them afterwards with his own Fictitious Reason Simon thought the opinion of St. Jerom very probable who wrote that it was not likely that Stephen in his Sermon to the Hierosolymitan Jews quoted his Old Testament Testamonies out of any other then the Hebrew Exemplars Simon does not speak of words of the Sermon which it is plain were spoken in the Syriac but of the places of Scripture which are cited by Stephen in that Sermon Vossius's device is as if Simon thought that the common People in the time of the Apostles understood the Ancient Hebrew Language whereas he rather every where affirms that the vulgar of Jerusalem spoke Syriac In the Hierasolymitan Synagogues where the Syriac was altogether natural the Law was not read in Greek but Hebrew to which the Syriac and not the Greek Interpretation was joyn'd as Vossius has faign'd Again he maliciously objects against Simon that the Writing of Aristaeus was by him treasur'd up among the Fictitious Writings for that reason because it was a solemn custom of the Jews to faign and write things Incredible when as those things which are contain'd in Moses and the Prophets are more incredible as if Simon had only prov'd from the solemn Custom of the Jews to feign and write Incredibilities that the History of Aristaeus was Fictitious Whereas he produces most solid Reasons taken from the work of Aristaeus himself and shews upon the Testimony of Phylo Herennius which Origen Reports that the Jews of that time feign'd many things very improbable But I do not wonder that Vossius compares such sort of Impostors with Moses and the Prophets who had already seated them among the Prophets Nevertheless in the same Treatise whereas for the most part always he speaks those things that hardly hold Water the learned Gentleman Writes that Truth is a Stranger to the Writings of the Jews that there is so much Ignorance so much Barbarity such a World of Fictions that there is nothing more true then that Satyrical Sarcasm Are minuto Qualicunque volunt Judei somnia vendunt Maliciously also and quite contrary to the meaning of Simon Vossius adds some other things to which it is needless to answer seeing that Simon 's Book it self is now every where publick both in Latin and French tho the new French Edition and the Latin which is taken out of it is very full of faults of the Press But now Vossius to press Simon the more home demands from whence Demetrius Falarius had his story of the Kings of the Jews if in his time there were no Greek Version This also Vossius feigns to fancy himself an Adversary For Simon will readily acknowledge that the History of Demetrius was taken out of the Greek Version which is vulgarly attributed to the 70 Elders Nor does he ever dispute of the Age wherein the Authors of that Version liv'd but of the Authors themselves and believes that what is reported by Aristeus concerning them to be a Fable As to the time wherein that Version was began and finished Vossius will not find F. Simon differing from the Alexandrian Jews But he can hardly be induc'd to believe so many Fables as are vulgarly reported concerning them In the mean time let the most delicate Vossius enjoy his own judgment who so greedily catches at dreams more than Rabbinically and because the Learned Gentleman now grown more perspicacious has enter'd the Lifts he now no longer doubts that not only the Pentateuch but all the Historical and Prophetick Books were Translated by the 70 Interpreters though he confesses he doubted it before Nevertheless the reasons of his doubting are very ponderous which are to be fetch'd from the Testimonies of Josephus Jerom and the Ancient Jews F. Simon had denied that the words of Aristeus were understood by Vossius now the Learned Gentleman appeals to all that understand Greek to whose determination I think we ought to stand and I could wish that the same Judges were to consider what Vossius has transferred out of Eusebius and other Writers into his is that incomparable Gentleman in all things who again devises new Hexaples of Origen which were never yet seen More probable are those things which he by and by adds concerning Origen who inserted the whole Version of the 70 Interpreters faithfully transcrib'd into his Hexaples not alter'd in some places as Simon suspects Yet we may suspect with Simon that Origen did not so entirely correct the Greek Interpretation which he himself acknowledges to have been over-run with Errours and Faults but that he alter'd some places under pretence of Amendment when as he did not only examine it by the most approv'd Copies of that Version but
this part Simon has not only distasted the most Learned Vossius but also some other persons of no less Note who have not forbore to Vomit forth their most virulent Poyson against his Critiea Sacra it will not be amiss to clear the truth of that Argument a little more plainly In the first place there is nothing that Simon has written concerning the publick Notaries of the Hebrew Nation but what these Diminitive Saint and nice Stomack'd Scholiasticks are extreamly offended at For those publick Registers they together with Eusebius and some of the Fathers call Prophets who not only committed to Writing the Transactions of their own Times but also took care of those Books which were written by the former Prophets and were kept in the publick Registries almost in the same manner as Esdras is said to have reveiw'd the Sacred Writings after the return of the Jews from Babylon and to have put them into that method which is still observ'd both by the Jews and Christians There is nothing in this Assertion of Simon which has not been approv'd by most of the Fathers and them the most Learned amongst the Rest Read but the Preface of single Theodoret one of the most Eminent Divines of the Eastern Church to the Book of Kings where he explains the whole matter and freely and without any scruple asserts that there were several Prophets among the Hebrews of which every one was wont to Write the Transactions of his own Age and that the greatest part of those Books are now wanting as is easie to be found in the History of the Chronicles He adds that those Books which we call the Books of Kings were a long time after taken out of those Books with Theodoretus Diod. in lib. 1. Sam. Mas praef Com. in Jâ—s Sanct. praef in lib. Reg. Perer. praef in Gen. Diodorus Procopius and others not a few consent To whom I may add the most Learned Masius whom Pierius Sanctius Cornclius a Lapide and other Jesuits long and much conversant in the Sacred Writings have follow'd whose words it is needless here to cite since their Works are every where to be had But to make this matter yet more plain it may be perhaps from the purpose to run over the several Books of Sacred Scripture and to take a short hint from every one The First that appears is Moses whom the constant Tradition both of Jews and Christians make to be the Author of the five Books of the Law But as to him the Jewish Rabbies seem to be the more religious who maintain that there is not so much as one word nay not so much as one syllable which did not proceed from God and was dictated to Moses Quite otherwise the most part of the Christians who affirm that some of the Books of Moses were added a long time after either by Esdras or some others who had the overveiwing of them Neither does St. Jerom presume to attribute to Moses some words of the Pentateuch as it is now extant following in this particular the common Opinion of the Doctors of the Church who constantly affirm that the whole Law was review'd and corrected by Esdras a most learned Scribe Whether you will saith St. Jerom that Moses was the Author of the Pentateuch or Esdras the restorer I will not gain say But whether Moses committed to Writing the whole History which we have under his Name or in part commanded it to be transcrib'd by the Notaries that Register'd the publick Transactions of his time is the Question However be it how it will Moses shall still be thought the Author and Writer of the whole Law as has been most excellently observ'd by Simon because those Scribes if there were any in his time were wholly at his Devotion And indeed we find nothing in the whole Law that does fix the Authority of those sort of Scribes And yet had they not been constituted by Moses from that very time the Hebrew Common-wealth had been deficient in what neither the Egyptians nor any other Eastern Nation wanted Now that there were Writers of Annals ever since the time of Moses the most Learned Jesuit Sanctius endeavours to prove in these words Proleg 4. in Paralip I beleive there were in the former Ages the words of Dayes Commentaries Ephemerides and that there was diligent and sedulous care least oblivion of Time should obscure the Nativities and Posterity of Men considerable which seems to me to have been certain from the very time of Moses I spare the names of others who have the same Sentiments And I wonder that a late Writer of the Order of the Seraphris enflam'd with a Seraphic Zeal should condemn in his Biblic Inquisitions this Opinion as Impious and curse the Authors of it But as I am inform'd that Seraphic Doctor though he understands neither Latin nor Greek is a person of most insolent ignorance and of the Sect of those who blaspheme what they understand not Jude 8. Some are offended and perhaps the more delicate Vossius for that Simon in his Critick's affirms that some of the Books of Moses were added afterwards But Simon is no Innovator in this particular as one that has to back him the most skilful Interpreters of the Sacred Scripture Masius and Pererius who has transferr'd all Masius's words into his Preface to Genesis Bonfrerius Cornelius a Lapide and many others Their Opinion also pleases me says Pererius who believe that the Pentateuch a long time after Moses was as it were fill'd up and render'd more plain by the Interlineation of many words and sentences and better methodiz'd for the continuation of the History In like manner Bonfrerius considering some words of Genesis which he suspects could not be written by Moses Com. in Cap. 36. Gen. v. 31. has these Expressions I had rather say that some other Hagiographer added somethings afterwards then ascribe all things to Moses performing the part of a Prophet Not much unlike to this speaks Cornelius a Lapide upon the same place Com. in c. 36. Gen. These words seem to be added after Moses 's time by some who digested the Diaries of Moses Nay Huetius himself in answer to Spinosa objecting that some things were added to the Books of Moses Dem. Evangel prop. 4. c. 14. so replies that he seems not to gainsay We confess says he that Esdras the Restorer of Scripture if any places more obscure or difficult then others occur'd stuft here and there into the Sacred Writings for explanations sake some things of his own Moreover seeing the Sacred Writings are propagated by so many Disputations that never so many Exemplars were ever known of any one Book no wonder if what has happen'd upon other occasions to other Books should happen to this that some Notes added by Pious and Learned Men in the Margin should at length creep into the Text. Lastly those relations at the end of Deutronomy concerning the Death and Burial of Moses by
all those things which are related by Samuel to his Deaeth many passages declare that they could not be written by him For it is hardly to be believ'd that he writing of the Transactions of his own time and of which he was an eye-Witness should write these words Therefore neither the Priest of Dagon 1 Sam. 5.5 nor any that come into the House of Dagon tread upon the Threshold of Dagon to this day In like manner neither could those things be related by Samuel concerning the Ark in the next Chapter where it is said and the Stone remains in the Field of Joshua the Beshemite to this Day To this we add That Samuel could not be the Author of that Clause which we find in his History Heretofore to every one spake that went to take Counsel of God for he that is at this day call'd a Prophet was then call'd a Seer However notwithstanding all these Objections it is probable that the History which goes under Samuel's Name was written by himself till the Relation of his Death And as for those things which are alleadg'd to the contrary that there was a review of some Scribe or Prophet perhaps Jeremiah as some think who added some things for Explanations sake tho' others choose rather to add these Additions to Esdras and his Collegiates The Syrians also affirm That the first and second Book of Kings were call'd the third and fourth in the Latin Versions were written by a certain Priest whose Name was Johanan As for the Book of Chronicles Sal. Comment in Paralip Kimchi praef in paralip or Parilapomena by whom they were Collected there is some reason to question Most of the Jews will have Esdras to be the Author of them which R. Solomon and R. David Kimchi asserts to be the Tradition of their fore-Fathers making also Aggai Zachary and Malachi assistants to Esdras Yet not so that they should be said to write the History anew but only to have reformed the Antient History of the Kings of Israel and Judah rejecting those things which did not seem so proper for their purpose and adding some things which were omitted in other Books of Sacred Scripture from whence they deriv'd the Name of Paralipomena among the Greeks which word afterwards crept into the Latin Wherefore St. Jerom not improperly calls the Book of Chronicles an Epitome of the Old Testament In Epist ad Paul Nevertheless he reports the Opinion of the Jows concerning this thing with whom Grotius also agrees who believes these Books to have been written by Esdras and by the Jews to have been call'd Dibre Hajamin the words of the Days or taken out of the Kings Diaries As for the Book of Esdras the greatest part of it was written by himself as the Transactions therein contain'd do manifestly declare But Nehemiah confesses himself in the Front of the Book to be the Author of the second Book of Esdras The Book of Psalms is by the Jews call'd Sepher Techillim or the Book of Praises which sometimes St. Austin seems to believe to have been all of David's composing nor does he scruple to ascribe those to David which it is manifest were written long after his time because he was both a Musitian and a Prophet Nor could the Names of Asaph Jeduthun and other Musitians said to be the Authors of some of the Psalms beat off St. Austin from that Opinion because that David might supply the Matter which afterwards they polish'd and set to several Tunes But St. Jerome is more in the right who asserts the Psalms to be theirs whose Names they bear in the Titles that is Davids Asaph's Jeduthuns the Sons of Core's Eman's the Ezrahite Moses's Solomon's and theirs whom Esdras comprehends in the first Volume with St. Jerom also most of the Jews agree And the Prudent Aben Ezra affirms That the Psalms were made by them whose Names are prefix'd Praef. in Psalm though there are some who have no Name at all But in this that Rabby corrects St. Jerome because he does not absolutely pronounce the Psalms to be made by them whose Names are prefix'd but that those which carry the Names of David and Solomon were either theirs or compos'd from them by the Musitians Yet Christ seems to attribute the whole Book of Psalms to David where he says And David himself says in the Book of Psalms But Christ only spake according to the common Opinion of the Jews for they call'd them generally David's Psalms not that they thought them to have been all compil'd by him for the Matter it self speaks the contrary but because he was the chiefest of all the Authors and for that he is call'd the most excellent Singer of Israel Yet the above-cited Aben Ezra writes that there are some of the Rabbys who attribute the whole Psalter to David and acknowledge him to be a Prophet The Book which is called the Book of Proverbs is generally said to be Solomons whose Name it carries at the beginning though the whole Method of that Work seems to demonstrate that it was nothing but a Collection of Sentences which being first gather'd together by Solomon and others were afterwards embody'd in one Volume That Solomon composed many Parables those words prove which he speaks of himself Eccles 12 9. And because the Preacher was wise he still taught the people knowledge he sought out and set in order many Proverbs which are number'd up to be above three thousand in the third Book of Kings of which at this day no more are extant then what we find in the Holy Writings C. 4.32 To the first nine Chapters of that Work the Name of Solomon is prefix'd and other fifteen Chapters which also bear his Name And this Aben Ezra believ'd to be the second part of his Parables or Sentences The third part of the Proverbs begins from these Words of the 25th Chapter v. 2. It is the Glory of God to conceal a thing Which distinction was made by them who reduc'd the Books of Scripture into that Order which is now observ'd for it is not to be believ'd that Solomon fix'd his Name to his Proverbs but only the Scribes who divided that Work into parts And so that Verse which we read at the beginning of the 25th Chapter These are the Proverbs of Solomon which the Men of Ezekiah King of Judah Copyed out Aben Ezra believes to have been written by Sobna who was King Ezekia's Scribe And indeed I am ready to believe that Sobna and others of King Ezekia's Scribes did extract out of the whole Volume those Sentences of which the first is the Glory of God c. and this the Word which the Men of Ezekiah Copy'd clearly demonstrate The fourth part of the Proverbs of Solomon begin at the beginning of the 30th Chapter where we read in the Latin Edition the Words of the Assembler but in the Hebrew Text the Words of Agur. But who that Agur and Assembler was the Interpreters of
Scripture do not agree among themselves The ancient Jews as R. Solomon testifies will have Solomon so call'd as if we should say a Collector or Assembler of Sentences for that Agar in Hebrew signifies to Collect the Sense of which the Latin Interpreter has render'd in Translating it the Words of the Collector or Assembler The same Opinion R. Levy Ben Gerson illustrates where he says Solomon seems to have given himself the Name of Agur in respect of the Sentences which he has Collected in this Book But perhaps Aben Ezra and Grotius following him with more reason suspects this Agur to have been the Theognes or Phocylledes of those Times out of whose writings Solomon might Collect some Sentences which he digested into one Volume with other Proverbs Lastly there is a fifth part of the Proverbs of Solomon contained within the 31st Chapter which is the last and that under the Name of King Lemuel who that Lemuel was is not known Most of the Jews believe that Solomon is meant thereby as Christ is intended by the word Immanuel as Aben Ezra asserts and the reason of that Appellation he takes from hence for that Lemuel signifies God with them because that in the Reign of Solomon as Aben Ezra testifies one God was worshipt among the Hebrews But there is no reason we should be sollicitous about the Word Lemuel especially when the Seventy say nothing of it and as they read so they have Translated the words of the Context quite after another manner As for the Book which in the Hebrew is call'd Cobaleth and by Us Ecclesiastes in Latin it is call'd Concionator or the Preacher though most of the latter Jews will have Cobeleth to signifie a person that Collects because that Book contains several Proverbs upon sundry Occasions Of this Opinion are R. Solomon and Aben Ezra and as he says Solomon in another place is call'd Agur for the same Reason as David de Pomis speaks In Lexi Heb Titolo del libro nomato Ecclesiastes composito da Salomone significa Congregatore per Congregareâ—e raccore in quel trattato diverse opinioni de gl' huomini la Maggior parte de quali sono false The Title of the Book called Ecclesiastes composed by Solomon signifies a Gatherer together from Collecting and gathering together in this Volume the opinions of Men the greatest part of which are false But some of the Jews according to the Testimony of R Salomon agree with the 70 in the Interpretation of the word Cobeleth believing it to signifie a Person that Preaches in some Congregation But as to the Author of that Book the Rabbies do not agree among themselves For the Talmudic Doctors ascribe it to Ezechia the later Rabbins to Solomon and these are back'd by the words of the Text in which there are some Passages that cannot well be meant of any other than Solomon therefore it is most probable that the Talmudics only meant that that same Writing was tak'n out of Solomon's Works by King Ezekiah or by Men appointed by him The Christian Interpreters also acknowledg no other Author of Ecclesiastes excepting some few among whom is Hugo Grotius who affirms that Book to be of a later date composed under the Name of Salomon for proof whereof he alledges that he has many words collected thence which are not extant but only in Daniel Esdras and the Chaldee Interpreters St. Jerom writes that the ancient Jews had some thoughts of obliterating this among the rest of Salomon's Works thrown by because he asserts the Creation of God to be vanity wherein St. Jerom agrees with the Talmudists and later Jews Jerom. Com. in 12. Eccles but every one knows that it is the Custom of those Doctors to feign many things of their own Heads By who the History was written that is entituled Esther is uncertain but as to the time when it was written almost all the Jews and Christians agree For whether the Authors of it were the Senators of the Grand Synagogue as the Talmudic Doctors believe or Esdras which is the Opinion of the Fathers or Mordecai as Aben Ezra more probably believes and the Book it self seems to testifie there is no dispute about the time when it was written Therefore Hugo Grotius does not conjecture amiss when he says that Esdras added to his own and the Book which Nehemiah wrote The History of Esther which happened in the middle of those Times of which the Transactions are related in those Books and which Grotius also acknowledges to have been written by Mordecai That the Song of Songs had no other Author than Salomon the very Title it self declares and it is certain from the third Book of Kings that the same Salomon composed both Proverbs and Songs But this because it was the best of Salomon's Songs was therefore called The Song of Songs that is to say the most Excellent Song Yet some do question whether it were written by Salomon as it is now extant or whether it were cull'd out of the whole Volume of his Songs However for that Song wherein Salomon is introduced discoursing with the Sunamite as a Bridegroom with a Bride is very difficult to explain not only by reason of the Expressions somewhat over confident and frequent Similitudes which our Customs will by no means endure but also because the Names of the Interlocutors are not set done for besides Salomon and his Spouse there are two Chorus's of young Men and Virgins But 't is a strange thing how the Rabbies differ among themselves about the Book of Job The Talmudics believe it to be no relation of real matter of Fact but that it is a Fiction or Parable to set forth a most exact and high Example of Piety and Patience and with these some of the Christians agree Nay there were some who did not only believe the Argument of the work to be feigned but will have the Name of Job to be taken out of those Letters of the first Verse of the third Chapter of the Book where we read Jobad Jom he curst the day For all that went before they looked upon only as a Prologue But the Testimony of Ezekiel who makes mention of Noah Daniel and Job demonstrates that the Name of Job is not fictitious and the prudent Aben Azra most sharply rebukes those who are of that Opinion He also believes him to have been of the Posterity of Esau which he gathers from the Name of the Place Com. in 1 cap. Job where he was born Besides the Names of Job and his Friends and other Circumstances plainly evidence that the story was really true according as it is related though it contains many things which are much more like Parable than Truth of History But as to the Author of it there is no certainty some apply it to Moses some to Isaiah others to Job himself and his Friends Nor do they agree among themselves who make Moses to be the Author of it some believing that it